Australia's 'extreme' summer a sign of things to come - researchers

[webfact]

Australia's 'extreme' summer a sign of things to come - researchers

By Ben Weir

REUTERS

 

A man sunbathes on rocks at a beach in Melbourne January 31, 2009. REUTERS/Mick Tsikas/Files

 

SYDNEY (Reuters) - Climate change was responsible for breaking more than 200 Australian weather records over the past three months, researchers said on Wednesday, a glimpse of conditions to come that will likely threaten energy security and agriculture.

 

Much of Australia's east coast endured its hottest summer on record, the independent Climate Council said, while torrential rain in Western Australia caused flash flooding.

 

The sort of unseasonable conditions seen between Dec. 1 and Feb. 28 would likely be recurring regularly in future, the council said.

 

"I would say by 2025 or 2030, the odds are we will see another hot summer record set in Sydney and in other places," said Will Steffen, professor of environmental studies, Australian National University and lead author of the Climate Council report.

 

The expected climate will strain the country's energy sector, the council said, threatening yet more blackouts.

 

Australia saw several power outages in different parts of he country after temperatures soared regularly above 40 Celsius (103 Fahrenheit), with demand for air-conditioning strained supplies.

 

Australia's changing climate also threatens one of the main pillars of its economy, with agricultural production vulnerable.

 

"A really bad year can just demolish crop yields," said Phin Ziebell, agribusiness economist, at the National Australia Bank.

 

Australia exported a record A$50 billion ($37.98 billion)worth of agricultural produce last year, government data shows, which helped soften the blow of a slowdown in its dominant mining sector.

 

The Climate Council report comes days after another independent report warned the impact of climate change had caused permanent damage to Australia's environment.

 

Australian scientists said recently mass coral bleaching, caused by climate change, has destroyed at least 35 percent of the northern and central Great Barrier Reef.

 

(Writing by Colin Packham; Editing by Robert Birsel)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-03-08

[PremiumLane]

Don't worry global warming isn't true, I read it on some bloke's blog; he said it was a conspiracy by the left-wing, Muslim, Nazi, lizard Illuminati to make him pay more taxes  

[mfd101]

Yes, my great aunt Ethell (117 next birthday) says she's seen it all before, and she's still got at least some of her marbles.

[maoro2013]

Well there are warmer years and colder years. Depending on which you choose for a start point, the world could be getting warming or cooling.

[soalbundy]

19 minutes ago, maoro2013 said:

Well there are warmer years and colder years. Depending on which you choose for a start point, the world could be getting warming or cooling.

sounds like you is an expert

[car720]

103 degrees Fahrenheit.  

Seems to me that when I was a kid in the 50's that there was an expression...............100 degrees in the shade.............it was common in Oz.

103 doesn't seem like a big deal.

[RickBradford]

17 hours ago, PremiumLane said:

Don't worry global warming isn't true, I read it on some bloke's blog; he said it was a conspiracy by the left-wing, Muslim, Nazi, lizard Illuminati to make him pay more taxes  

You should have read Tim Flannery's blog instead.

 

He is the guy who said in 2007 that it would never rain properly again in eastern Australia, thus causing governments to build billions of dollars worth of desalination plants. Those are expensively mothballed now as eastern Australia has seen regular flooding rains which have filled the dams.

 

He is also the person who warned about catastrophic sea level rise, while buying 2 luxury properties at the water's edge.

 

Oh, and he is also the person who set up this independent crowd-funded Climate Council whose report is cited in the OP.  He's the poster boy for fake news on Australian climate matters.

 

He's simply trolling for more funds, but people are getting tired of him.

[DM07]

Hmmmm...let's see...200 weather records broken in the last 3 months.

2016 was the hottest year on record...before it was 2015...before that it was 2014...

 

Damn, the Chinese really got good at these climate hoaxes!

[darksidedog]

14 minutes ago, car720 said:

103 degrees Fahrenheit.  

Seems to me that when I was a kid in the 50's that there was an expression...............100 degrees in the shade.............it was common in Oz.

103 doesn't seem like a big deal.

The coastal regions of Australia are normally cooler than inland. 120 Fahrenheit can be found in the outback.

I lived in Sydney for 7 years. It was uncommon for the needle to go over 100.

[norbra]

ASH WEDNESDAY

Factsheet

Major bushfire locations

on Ash Wednesday

The Ash Wednesday fires consisted of some of the most devastating bushfires Australia has ever experienced, sweeping

through parts of Victoria and South Australia.

Weather conditions leading up to the Ash Wednesday fires

Between April 1982 and January 1983, Victoria experienced severe drought conditions and little rainfall, resulting in its dries

t

period on record. A combination of dry grasslands and forests, very hot temperatures, low humidity and high wind gusts

presented Victoria with a high bushfire risk. The temperature was 43 degrees Celsius on Ash Wednesday.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

You should have read Tim Flannery's blog instead.

 

He is the guy who said in 2007 that it would never rain properly again in eastern Australia, thus causing governments to build billions of dollars worth of desalination plants. Those are expensively mothballed now as eastern Australia has seen regular flooding rains which have filled the dams.

 

 

So you believe a drought is not going to happen again? And Australia shouldn't be prepared for it? And the reason that Australia did this was because it is compelled to heed the dicta of Tim Flannery?

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

You should have read Tim Flannery's blog instead.

 

He is also the person who warned about catastrophic sea level rise, while buying 2 luxury properties at the water's edge.

 

 

 

He's simply trolling for more funds, but people are getting tired of him.

Flannery: Hadley concocted story on my waterside home

As Flannery pointed out to any journalist who asked, his house in fact sits above the most radical projections of sea level rises.

He launched legal action against The Oz and won a withdrawal of the article, publication of a page-three apology and $5000 in legal costs.

https://www.crikey.com.au/2011/11/22/flannery-hadley-concocted-story-on-my-waterside-home/

It says a lot about the sources you depend on that they repeat disproven lies like this one.

Edited March 9, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[toofarnorth]

20 hours ago, mfd101 said:

Yes, my great aunt Ethell (117 next birthday) says she's seen it all before, and she's still got at least some of her marbles.

Can she remember where she put them though ?

[elgordo38]

Hey Donald are you paying attention??? Oh sorry you want to dig more coal right. Do away with the EPA. What a Jekyll and Hyde your turning out to be. 

[RickBradford]

Quote

As Flannery pointed out to any journalist who asked, his house in fact sits above the most radical projections of sea level rises.

If Flannery said that, then he was lying. His property on the Hawkesbury lies less than 10 metres above current sea level.

 

Yet in 2006, he himself publicly endorsed predictions made by "arguably the world authority on climate change" of sea level rises of 25 metres within a decade.

 

"Picture an eight-storey building by a beach, then imagine waves lapping its roof. That's what a 25-metre rise in sea level looks like," he wrote in a column in The Age.

 

One of his fellow bedwetters, the ABC's Robyn Williams, claimed that a 100-metre rise in sea level was possible this century.

 

Flannery may have been lying, or he could just be a serial hypocrite, like Di Caprio, Gore, and all the other people who lecture about the dangers of climate change from the cabins of their private jets. Either way, he is nobody to take seriously.

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, RickBradford said:

If Flannery said that, then he was lying. His property on the Hawkesbury lies less than 10 metres above current sea level.

 

Yet in 2006, he himself publicly endorsed predictions made by "arguably the world authority on climate change" of sea level rises of 25 metres within a decade.

 

"Picture an eight-storey building by a beach, then imagine waves lapping its roof. That's what a 25-metre rise in sea level looks like," he wrote in a column in The Age.

 

One of his fellow bedwetters, the ABC's Robyn Williams, claimed that a 100-metre rise in sea level was possible this century.

 

Flannery may have been lying, or he could just be a serial hypocrite, like Di Caprio, Gore, and all the other people who lecture about the dangers of climate change from the cabins of their private jets. Either way, he is nobody to take seriously.

 

 

Do you realize how ridicululour your claim is about his house. You say he was lying  yet he won a libel suit?  I guess the lawyers for OZ are so incompetent that they wouldn't have thought to check his claims.  Clearly, you are a complete victim of fake news sites.

 

And no, he didn't predict that sea levels would rise within a decade.  Nor did James Hanson, a climatologist for Nasa.

"James Hanson, director of NASA's Goddard Institute, is arguably the world authority on climate change. He predicts that we have just a decade to avert a 25-metre rise of the sea. Picture an eight-storey building by a beach, then imagine waves lapping its roof. That's what a 25-metre rise in sea level looks like."

[RickBradford]

Quote

You say he was lying  yet he won a libel suit?  I guess the lawyers for OZ are so incompetent that they wouldn't have thought to check his claims.

 

What libel suit would that be, then? Nor did I say he was lying, which is why I used the word 'if', a conjunction used in the English language to indicate a possible or imagined situation.

 

You seem to be getting a lot of dud information, but I guesss that's not surprising when you source stuff from a website which calls itself Crikey!

 

Flannery's expensive property is a few metres above the waterline, well within reach of alarmist predictions of sea-level rise, which certainly makes him a hypocrite in the De Caprio/Gore mould. His activities make him plenty of money, as well, always a strong inducement.

 

Another well-known fact about Flannery is how little he knows about climate change. A simple Google search for 'Flannery failed climate predictions' reveals all manner of alarmist nonsense he has spouted in the past, though you won't find it on Crikey!

[ilostmypassword]

11 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

 

What libel suit would that be, then? Nor did I say he was lying, which is why I used the word 'if', a conjunction used in the English language to indicate a possible or imagined situation.

 

You seem to be getting a lot of dud information, but I guesss that's not surprising when you source stuff from a website which calls itself Crikey!

 

Flannery's expensive property is a few metres above the waterline, well within reach of alarmist predictions of sea-level rise, which certainly makes him a hypocrite in the De Caprio/Gore mould. His activities make him plenty of money, as well, always a strong inducement.

 

Another well-known fact about Flannery is how little he knows about climate change. A simple Google search for 'Flannery failed climate predictions' reveals all manner of alarmist nonsense he has spouted in the past, though you won't find it on Crikey!

First off, I noticed you dropped your claim that Flannery predicted a sea level rise of 25 meters within 10 years. Brave of you not to acknowledge that.

 

He launched legal action against The Oz and won a withdrawal of the article, publication of a page-three apology and $5000 in legal costs.

 

What about this don't you understand?

 

 

 

[boomerangutang]

        Why are we discussing one guy and some property he bought, and how many meters above sea level it is?   Diversion.  The OP and the main issue is GW and mostly how it affects people in Australia.  The bigger issue is GW worldwide and to what extent it's exacerbated by people activities.  

 

          I've believed GW is real since first hearing about it.  I've read over 100 scientific articles about it, and have seen its impact first hand.  Deniers are lessening in # as each week rolls by.  Trump is to climate science what a mule is to table manners.   But thankfully, there are many good & bright people ww who are doing what they can to make things better - or at least to lessen the drawbacks of GW.

 

[RickBradford]

Quote

 

He launched legal action against The Oz and won a withdrawal of the article, publication of a page-three apology and $5000 in legal costs.

 

What about this don't you understand?

 

I understand it perfectly. If you understood it too, you would notice it says nothing about a "libel suit". Do you have some evidence that such a libel suit took place? A judge's ruling, a docket number, perhaps? An article  describing the gripping proceedings in court?

 

I guess this is another assertion sourced from Crikey! They are about as fake news as you can get, but even they have limits. Did you just make the "libel suit" stuff up yourself?

 

In this case, you are clearly a "denier". At least 97% of people know that Flannery is thoroughly ignorant of climate science, and good only at self-promotion. His record proves it.

 

 

[RickBradford]

2 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

        Why are we discussing one guy and some property he bought, and how many meters above sea level it is?   Diversion.  The OP and the main issue is GW and mostly how it affects people in Australia.  The bigger issue is GW worldwide and to what extent it's exacerbated by people activities.  

 

          I've believed GW is real since first hearing about it.  I've read over 100 scientific articles about it, and have seen its impact first hand.  Deniers are lessening in # as each week rolls by.  Trump is to climate science what a mule is to table manners.   But thankfully, there are many good & bright people ww who are doing what they can to make things better - or at least to lessen the drawbacks of GW.

 

Brave words, reminiscent of Beau Geste ("We will never surrender"), as Trump prepares to lead the US out of the silly Paris climate change agreement, and shreds the EPA's and NASA's interference in climate matters.

 

It's over for climate change activism. Try something else, like meteors and megatsunamis.

[ilostmypassword]

25 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

I understand it perfectly. If you understood it too, you would notice it says nothing about a "libel suit". Do you have some evidence that such a libel suit took place? A judge's ruling, a docket number, perhaps? An article  describing the gripping proceedings in court?

 

I guess this is another assertion sourced from Crikey! They are about as fake news as you can get, but even they have limits. Did you just make the "libel suit" stuff up yourself?

 

In this case, you are clearly a "denier". At least 97% of people know that Flannery is thoroughly ignorant of climate science, and good only at self-promotion. His record proves it.

 

 

And you still haven't acknowledged you were wrong about Flannery predicting a 25 meter rise in sea level in 10 years.

[RickBradford]

Quote

And you still haven't acknowledged you were wrong about Flannery predicting a 25 meter rise in sea level in 10 years.

Because I never said Flannery "predicted" anything about sea-level rise. How could he? The man knows nothing about climate change.

 

Face it, the man's a goose. If climate change activists wanted anything to change, they wouldn't have relied on shills like Flannery, Gore, Steffen, Lewandowsky, Di Caprio to sell the message.

 

But that's the activist way -- if nobody's listening, get louder and shriller. It doesn't work, as we've seen.

 

Got that "libel suit" docket number yet? No? Crikey!

 

Never mind, the point is made.

[AlphaSoiDog]

11 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Because I never said Flannery "predicted" anything about sea-level rise. How could he? The man knows nothing about climate change.

 

Face it, the man's a goose. If climate change activists wanted anything to change, they wouldn't have relied on shills like Flannery, Gore, Steffen, Lewandowsky, Di Caprio to sell the message.

 

But that's the activist way -- if nobody's listening, get louder and shriller. It doesn't work, as we've seen.

 

Got that "libel suit" docket number yet? No? Crikey!

 

Never mind, the point is made.

 

And the denier way is to keep moving the goal posts. "There's no proof that A... Oh wait, there is now? Oh, then there's no proof that B.... Really? Then there definitely isn't...."

 

The documentary proof that "denying" was invented by 6 US oil companies so they wouldn't need to change there business model is a matter of public record. So is the US govt. supporting the idea of "denying" as being a "balanced view" even though they had the evidence that it wasn't. The Koch brothers (oil magnates) claimed that "all the weather stations" have car parks around them and it's the asphalt that has warmed up. They believed their own BS so much they lost a heap of money proving that not only were they completely wrong, but that the scientists had been too conservative. (Same result when the dust settled on "climate gate").

 

But facts don't make any impact on belief systems. Climate Change Denying is to those that believe in it, just like religion. No amount of facts will prove to a creationist that the Earth is more than some thousands of years old. Any "facts" you mention to them will result in "there is no proof that..." or "God made it look like that".

 

And the way the human brain (doesn't) work is that even the act of mentioning the facts will make their belief system stronger, just like a religious person, or a cult member. The very act of reading this post will make a denier even more determined and shrill, even more convinced that only they are correct. Very very few humans have the critical thinking ability to question their own belief systems. Of course those with the least ability "believe" that they have the most....

 

And while the stupid cult sounding arguments drag on, the corporations keep making money on their old business models and the governments get away with even more horrendous crap. Don't even get me started on the other major looming disasters that are being ignored, like overpopulation which is pretty much at the no turning back point without dramatic action being taken.

 

I keep thinking that people might wake up and smell the coffee, but Thai Visa is just like the rest of the world, lots of bickering and put downs from people who KNOW they are the ones that are RIGHT. Instead of it always being the fantastic useful tool that it sometimes is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RickBradford]

Quote

 

But facts don't make any impact on belief systems. Climate Change Denying is to those that believe in it, just like religion.

...

And the way the human brain (doesn't) work is that even the act of mentioning the facts will make their belief system stronger, just like a religious person, or a cult member. 

 

If you had a shred more self-awareness, you would realise that these arguments apply equally to those who blindly believe that man-made global warming is going to make the human race extinct by 2030, or create 20 million climate refugees by 2010, or any of the other hysterical claims made by the alarmists.

 

Quote

Very very few humans have the critical thinking ability to question their own belief systems. 

And you don't appear to be one of them, from the tone and content of your post.

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

Brave words, reminiscent of Beau Geste ("We will never surrender"), as Trump prepares to lead the US out of the silly Paris climate change agreement, and shreds the EPA's and NASA's interference in climate matters.

 

It's over for climate change activism. Try something else, like meteors and megatsunamis.

Nurse! Nurse! Rick's out of bed again!

Edited March 9, 2017 by Grouse

[AlphaSoiDog]

 

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

If you had a shred more self-awareness, you would realise that these arguments apply equally to those who blindly believe that man-made global warming is going to make the human race extinct by 2030, or create 20 million climate refugees by 2010, or any of the other hysterical claims made by the alarmists.

 

And you don't appear to be one of them, from the tone and content of your post.

 

And a sure sign that someone is in cognitive dissonance is when they go on a personal attack in response to something that doesn't fit their belief system.

 

Other than, perhaps, my comment about moving goal posts as an argument strategy, I made no arguments. I simply pointed out a few facts on the public record that you could have checked for yourself. Making an argument against a belief system only makes it stronger, so it would be a pointless exercise.

 

I also make no claims to be a brilliant and unbiased critical thinker. But at least I know what it means and do my best to question my own beliefs in a rational manner. Clearly you would rather personally attack someone you don't know, in a public forum, rather than do the same.

 

I thank you though for confirming my last point though.

 

[boomerangutang]

4 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Brave words, reminiscent of Beau Geste ("We will never surrender"), as Trump prepares to lead the US out of the silly Paris climate change agreement, and shreds the EPA's and NASA's interference in climate matters.

It's over for climate change activism. Try something else, like meteors and megatsunamis.

Trump is one man.  At most, he's one chief exec among many.  Every other national leader ww respects science, and they 're not backing themselves in a stupid corner, like Trump.  If anything, Trump's stupidity is galvanizing efforts ww, to do what's right in dealing with climate issues.   Similarly, Trump is creating unity and stimulating activism among many who are angered by his callousness and ignorance.

[RickBradford]

7 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Trump is one man.  At most, he's one chief exec among many.  Every other national leader ww respects science, and they 're not backing themselves in a stupid corner, like Trump.  If anything, Trump's stupidity is galvanizing efforts ww, to do what's right in dealing with climate issues.   Similarly, Trump is creating unity and stimulating activism among many who are angered by his callousness and ignorance.

I think Trump is a realist. He knows that neither China or India are going to hobble their economies through onerous schemes to reduce CO2 emissions, so he's darned if he's going to disadvantage America in that way, either.

 

With the US, China and India (and Russia, as it happens) continuing on their normal industrial path, that's the ball game for cutting CO2 emissions globally.

 

What that means for the global climate, we'll have to see. Not very much, is my guess.

[daveAustin]

There are always ups and downs in climate but folk poo-pooing the fact that putting billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere as having zero affect on temps need to do some real thinking if they can manage it. One is in effect creating one's atmosphere, it is how climate forms on planets (sh1t, this stuff was taught in schools in the '80s), and reason why Venus is hotter than Mercury.

[RickBradford]

Quote

There are always ups and downs in climate but folk poo-pooing the fact that putting billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere as having zero affect on temps need to do some real thinking if they can manage it

Very good -- in a single sentence you manage to combine a meaningless slur ("if they can manage it") with a made-up argument ("zero affect [sic] on temps").

 

No serious skeptics think that CO2 has zero effect on temperature. The disagreement is on how much, to what extent feedbacks kick in, and whether the effect on climate will be beneficial, neutral or harmful in the long run. 

 

For example, take  Dr. Richard Lindzen, recently-retired Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT. He is someone who, when it comes to thinking, "can manage it."

 

He freely accepts that CO2 in the atmosphere, by itself, has the ability to increase temperatures. His work leads him to believe that changes will be minor, and is surprised at how the world worked itself up into a frenzy over a temperature rise of less than 1C over the past 160 years. 

 

Of course, for these conclusions, he has been routinely demonised as a "denier" and a "misinformer", and activists have scurried around trying to point out inconsistencies in his work.

 

I'm not surprised that he hit back at the name-callers: "I think it's mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves."