Aussie Data Centres Brace For Dust Storm Barrage

An anonymous reader writes "Data centers and telcos in the Australian cities of Sydney and Brisbane have shut off external ventilation systems, restricted loading dock access and attended false alarms after a major dust storm choked the cities today. The storm is said to be the worst of its type ever recorded in Australia. Macquarie Telecom disengaged automatic deployment of fire-prevention gas from the fire alarm to prevent gas being released on a false alarm. Other major data center operators reported clogged air filters and heat exchangers and said they would be performing cleaning and maintenance operations this week."

Comments

c-c-c-c

[Anonymous Coward]

climate change :-P

Re:c-c-c-c

[Anonymous Coward]

crikey?

Re:c-c-c-c

[hydrolyzer]

Climate change is a farce. im a sydneysider, this is the worst duststorm we've had in 70 years, IE: 70 years ago, it was this bad. It's the first year of el nino, the ground is going to be dry, it happens. its also not the worst dustorm in the country, the 1984 one in melbourne was worse. the arctic icecap is melting too, curiously in line with the friggin range of underwater volcanoes spewing hot magma into the ocean.

Re:c-c-c-c

[Anonymous Coward]

O boy-prepare to be modded to oblivion...

Re:c-c-c-c

[MrNaz]

Usually when I see someone spouting off, there's at least some argument that can be rebutted, some point that can be countered, some claim that can be disproved or, at least, some myth that can be dispelled. I read this post, over and over, trying to find some way to respond in an intelligent manner, to try to get across a point about this subject that I feel so strongly about. However, try as I might, the only response I could come up with was this:
OMGWTFLOLHAHA.

Re:c-c-c-c

[Anonymous Coward]

You're just being lazy. You know that in order to stop climate change you will have to make sacrifices, and you feel it's beneath you to use finite resources responsibly. Maybe when waste is criminalized then you'll see reason. Climate change has been absolutely proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Now is the time to open your eyes and take action willingly, for later your inaction will be severely punished - If not by man, then by MOTHER NATURE.

Re:c-c-c-c

[dakameleon]

So that would roughly line up with the 1937-1947 drought, when the following happened:

As the drought extended into 1945, large rivers virtually dried up. By December 1944 the Hunter had ceased to flow along most of its course; by January the Hawkesbury was dry at North Richmond. By April 1945, most Victorian water storages were empty, the Murray had ceased to flow at Echuca, and Adelaide faced water shortages. As far north as Townsville here were water restrictions. Dust storms raged in South Australia, northern Victoria and southern NSW on many days in the summer of 1944-45

I don't know about you, but that's not something I'd like to experience with the current population of Australia. If there's some part of cutting CO2 output that would help avoid such a situation, I'll gladly sign up for it.

Re:c-c-c-c

[dangitman]

So, climate change is a farce, just because you say so, despite the overwhelming evidence that it's happening? Congratulations, you just destroyed any credibility you might otherwise have.

Re:c-c-c-c

[SerpentMage]

Climate change a farce?

Give me a break. Of course climate change is happening. Look at California, Spain, Greece, and other places. They are turning into deserts. Year after year more fires, and more arid. It is changing the land at a local level. Other places like Canada are get more tornado's and they are getting more tail ends of hurricanes.

The question of whether or not it is man made in my opinion is quite irrelevant since we don't even have plan regardless of the cause. The big issue right now is how to deal with climate change? What are we doing to secure our water supplies? Or our essential resources...

Re:c-c-c-c

[TapeCutter]

"Climate change is a farce."

No, farcical is believing an obvious lie such as the claim that an active super volcano is melting either or both poles.

Also you haven't defined "worst dustorm"? - I would assume TFA is measuring the duststorm by the area it covered. In which case this one would be the "worst" of the two since it streached from South Australia to Queensland where as the 1984 one (that I experienced as it rolled over Bairnsdale) only covered Victoria and parts of NSW / S.Australia, at a rough guess that's about 1/4 of the area.

"It's the first year of el nino, the ground is going to be dry"

El Nino has not kicked in yet and it is NOT forecast to do so this year, this dust has accumulated under El Nina conditions. When ENSO does in fact flip to El Nino conditions the ground is going to get even dryer than it already is.

Did you (while reading up on non-existant volcanos), fail to notice that the majority of Aussies are living with strict water rationing laws? Are you unaware that practically all the state capitals in the country are frantically pouring billion$ into building some of the largest desal plants on the planet? Have you not noticed that most aussie grain harvests over the last 10yrs have seen a 50-60% drop in size when compared to pre 1990 averages? Is there not a giant scar on the Victorian bush from what was an upnprecedented firestorm (I say this having wittnessed first hand all three major fires in living memeory, 2009, 1984 & 1968(?) ). Are the hydro plants in Tassie not silent due to lack of water in their recently completed dams? Is Melbourne currently not at it's lowest winter water reserves on record?

Please also explain to us (without invoking invisable volcanos) why an entire forrest of 600yo river red gums has not survived this particular drought, when according to you conditions have been much worse at various times in the last century or so.

Like some of the other replies, I really have no explaination for why people post bullshit like the steaming pile in your post, is it attempted gallows humor? Are you paid?

Re:c-c-c-c

[Merls the Sneaky]

Mod this man informative!

Re:c-c-c-c

[aussie_a]

As a joke someone should mod him up funny.

Re:c-c-c-c

[cheekyboy]

you make me laff seriously, reduce c02 will help?
Ok,

1. lets eat every single cow, and make them extinct
2. make cutting down lots of trees illegal, except for personal use, like a house.
3. increase petrol taxes to $50/litre and make bikes free.

Ok youve achieve youre goal and reducing c02 emissions.
Next week a giant volcano in suva erupts spewing out the equivalent of 50 years of USA c02 emissions in one day.

More realisticly, 6.3m cars a year are made in china, you think that will reduce c02?
http://www.chinaknowledge.com/Business/CBGdetails.aspx?subchap=3&content=9

Over 10 years how much c02 is that? All western efforts are pointless.

Darn, that was a waste. What now.

 

Re:c-c-c-c

[CCFreak2K]

Living in California, I'd have to say that the "more fires" thing isn't JUST climate change; it's also a result of overgrowth. Fires burn out the vegetated areas, and they regrow. Every year it doesn't, the danger grows higher (I was temporarily displaced by this one actually). The San Joaquin valley, though...that's probably turning into a desert, and probably for the same reason as the dust bowl.

Re:c-c-c-c

[cheekyboy]

sh1t happens, get used to it.

Then again, rampant immigration that uses MORE WATER isnt helping too is it, right, is it !!!!

How much more toilet flushing, daily showering people DO WE NEED.

Re:c-c-c-c

[smegged]

So Melbourne has been in drough for a good 8 years. QLD was in drought for a good decade before the rains came. The problem that Victorians have is that their quasi-religious problem with building dams has lead to their current dams to run dry while whole river systems that are not dammed are flooding. Did you know that if the Mitchell river was damed that Melbournites would be happily able to run with zero water restrictions? Did you know that the Mitchell has flooded three times in the last decade? Did you know that by damming the Mitchell less than a thousand individuals would be displaced - for the sake of nearly triple the Thompson catchment capacity?

But instead we have a government down there who wants to spend six times the amount to build a dirty and energy intensive water source that has a tiny fraction of the capacity of the Mitchell dam.

It is just another case of the blatant and utter disregard for logic which the green religion commonly displays, along with their condemnation of the only reliable baseload emissions free electricity source and their ridiculous condemnation of ecologically important acts like culling kangaroos and camels (which are not a native species by the way).

Re:c-c-c-c

[Mashiki]

Well lets look at reality now shall we? See in the last 150 years we've had amazing improvements in the ability to see and record weather events. Now, where I'm from Ontario, even in the last 10 years if a tornado happened in the middle of nowhere Northern Ontario and no one was around to hear it, it didn't happen. These days it's hit or miss. In the southern half, meaning south of Ottawa, we get anywhere between 20-45 a year. Which is pretty average and has been average.

Nowe to continue on, if you don't let nature do it's thing out west. Like in California, BC and so forth and burn out the dead brush then you start getting these amazing wildfires which will do the job for you because there is so much dry tinder. See wild fires are a part of the ecosystem. Plants and animials there have developed around it. See how some of the pines even require fire to crack open their cones. Now, Spain and Greece. They've been pretty good at failing to maintain low-level growth, and killing off large trees. See where I'm going with this? And in places like the Sahara where they're now planting seed grasses and small trees. They're taking off. Desertfication is receeding.

Re:c-c-c-c

[TapeCutter]

As I said in another post land abuse is the root cause, AGW is the straw that broke the sheeps back. Massive cotton farms and over allocation of irrigation rights have absolutely nothing to do with immigration.

Re:c-c-c-c

[TapeCutter]

"Did you know that the Mitchell has flooded three times in the last decade?"

Yes, that's why the valley is chock full of highly productive market gardens not to mention the vast coastal lake system that would putrify without it's inflows as has already happened to the lakes in S Autralia. As for your other links please don't conflate ludites, animal rights actisits and environmentalists as one group marching in lockstep for obviously flawed crusades.

This particular "greenie" agrees with the grandfather of all greenies (James Lovelock) and thinks nukes are PART of the solution but I don't think we need to use it ourselves, I think we should be selling our yellowcake to nations that don't have such an embarrasing wealth of renewables as we do. I also support controlled culls and don't have a problem feeding roo, emu, camel, buffallo, etc, to my dog.

Re:c-c-c-c

[MaWeiTao]

Southern California, Spain and Greece have always had a tendency to be arid. It's one of the reasons why California and Spain in particular have such great wine country. They're certainly not turning into deserts. The reason why people are noticing it more is because more people are living out there. More people are putting more strain on local resources and there are more people around to notice conditions. When fires happen, for example, people notice because it's their property being destroyed and certainly they increase the chance of starting these fires. I always found it a bit ridiculous that people who've decided to live in the deserts of Southern California are now basically complaining to the rest of the country about how hot and dry it is.

On your second point, what tail ends of hurricanes hitting Canada are you talking about? The only thing I was able to find in reference to that on Google was some Canadian environmental group back in 1999 making a claim that more hurricanes MAY hit Canada. From what I've seen so far that hasn't turned out to be true. About the only part of Canada they could hit is Newfoundland and Nova Scotia and in that case they'd likely be making landfall in the American northeast and we haven't had a real hurricane up here in about 20 years. So I fail to see the threat.

People are always making these threats which are supposedly just around the corner. Then years go by and nothing predicted comes true. But then we get a weather event, the sort of which was observed maybe 100 years ago, and people freak out claiming it's evidence of global warming. Oh wait, the term is now an all-encompassing climate change like somehow the climate was static for the past 4 billion years. I suppose if you believe in the 6000-year-old Earth you might also believe that climate shouldn't be changing.

Re:c-c-c-c

[CrimsonAvenger]

Look at California, Spain, Greece, and other places. They are turning into deserts.

I won't comment on "Spain, Greece, and other places", but much of California IS a desert, and always has been.

LA, San Diego, most of southern California can exist as they do because humans diverted virtually the entire Colorado river and the entire snowmelt in the southern Rockies to making it the environment you consider "normal".

Fact is, the real California climate is semi-arid at best until you get up toward the Bay area.

Re:c-c-c-c

[Mal-2]

El Nino has not kicked in yet and it is NOT forecast to do so this year [bom.gov.au], this dust has accumulated [bom.gov.au] under El Nina conditions. When ENSO does in fact flip to El Nino conditions the ground is going to get even dryer than it already is.

As evidence to the contrary, the NOAA is predicting that the El Niño effect most likely WILL kick in during Northern Hemisphere winter 09-10.

Synopsis: El Niño is expected to strengthen and last through the Northern Hemisphere winter 2009-2010.

A weak El Niño continued during August 2009, as sea surface temperature (SST) remained above-average across the equatorial Pacific Ocean (Fig. 1). Consistent with this warmth, the latest weekly values of the Niño-region SST indices were between +0.7oC to +1.0oC (Fig. 2). Subsurface oceanic heat content (average temperatures in the upper 300m of the ocean, Fig. 3) anomalies continued to reflect a deep layer of anomalous warmth between the ocean surface and the thermocline, particularly in the central Pacific (Fig. 4). Enhanced convection over the western and central Pacific abated during the month, but the pattern of suppressed convection strengthened over Indonesia. Low-level westerly wind anomalies continued to become better established over parts of the equatorial Pacific Ocean. These oceanic and atmospheric anomalies reflect an ongoing weak El Niño.

A majority of the model forecasts for the Niño-3.4 SST index (Fig. 5) suggest El Niño will reach at least moderate strength during the Northern Hemisphere fall (3-month Niño-3.4 SST index of +1.0oC or greater). Many model forecasts even suggest a strong El Niño (3-month Niño-3.4 SST index in excess of +1.5oC) during the fall and winter, but current observations and trends indicate that El Niño will most likely peak at moderate strength. Therefore, current conditions, trends, and model forecasts favor the continued development of a weak-to-moderate strength El Niño into the Northern Hemisphere fall 2009, with the likelihood of at least a moderate strength El Niño during the winter 2009-10.

Re:c-c-c-c

[TapeCutter]

Yeah, but who belives models! /jk

Re:c-c-c-c

[Dragoness Eclectic]

The "real climate" of the Bay Area latitudes is semi-arid once you get away from the coast and over a range of hills or two. It's what they call a "Mediterranean climate" -- cool rainy winters, arid hot summers, rain on the windward side of the mountains only.

Old news... happened yesterday!

[Anonymous Coward]

This happened yesterday in Australia... We are kind of over it now!

Re:Old news... happened yesterday!

[urbanheretic]

The dust may have settled yesterday, but I think cleaning bits of uluru out of the filters etc. in the data centres may keep the IT monkeys busy for the next week or so.

Re:Old news... happened yesterday!

[robbak]

It's our turn with the dust up here in North Queensland. Mind you, it is not nearly as bad, merely masking out the mountains. Should get a spectacular sunset this afternoon.

Re:Old news... happened yesterday!

[Anonymous Coward]

The dust came from South Australia, not the Northern Territory. So nothing to do with Uluru (Ayers Rock), but nice reference to show that "you know about Australia".

On a further note, fuck them. They take our water, our land goes dry, they eat our dust. It's the circle of life.

Re:Old news... happened yesterday!

[AHuxley]

Maralinga dust :)
The joy from the 1956-63 nuke tests. The major tests where few, its all the burn tests and neutron initiators work that got really really dirty.

Re:Old news... happened yesterday!

[shermo]

Yes but everyone knows Australia is in the future.

It's only just happening now for real.

Re:Old news... happened yesterday!

[theTerribleRobbo]

Yep. Here's what it looked like yesterday:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/E_Aust_dust_storm_-_MODIS_Terra_1km_-_23_Sept_2009.jpg

The coast of Queensland is that as-yet-untouched bit up the top-right there. :-)

Re:Old news... happened yesterday!

[MichaelSmith]

Yes but everyone knows Australia is in the future.

It's only just happening now for real.

Send me cash and I will give you tomorrows lottery numbers.

Re:Old news... happened yesterday!

[MichaelSmith]

Ha! I wonder if this pushed up radiation counts over NSW? Even normal dust storms should be slightly radioactive, because the normal radioactive material in the ground.

Re:Old news... happened yesterday!

[Anonymous Coward]

Adelaide is semi arid. Always has, always will. Build desal and be done with it. (coming from someone who grew up in Adelaide for 26 years, then got the hell out before Adelaideism nearly robbed me of my ambition)

Re:Old news... happened yesterday!

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately that doesn't work. Information coming from Australia is 15 hours ahead, but information going to Australia is 15 hours behind.

Re:Old news... happened yesterday!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you die in Australia, you die in real life!

Re:Old news... happened yesterday!

[mrdoogee]

So he'll be receiving my money yesterday?
  Well where are my lottery numbers? I am going to used to have been sending you my cash already!

Might I recommend

[Anonymous Coward]

Kudzu? Hey, it worked eighty years ago. You've got at least fifty years before you have to worry about it choking out your native wildlife!

In Brisbane

[PigIronBob]

You could taste it by about 11am (still can). Water restrictions will be lifted for a few days to allow people to hose things down. Latest reports suggest there is a lesser dust storm due here by Saturday. Damn Kiwis are stealing our country by stealth!

Re:In Brisbane

[thoughtfulbloke]

While New Zealand got the same storm system, it had sucked up the frigid waters of the Tasman Sea on its journey. So while it was a dust storm in Sydney, it was snow in NZ.

Kanye ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Kanye West just called and said "Yo Sydney! I'm really happy for you and I'm gonna let you finish ... but in 1983 Melbourne had one of the best dust storms of all time!"

Re:Kanye ...

[maglor_83]

You have to admit, the Melbourne one does look pretty cool!

Re:Kanye ...

[MichaelSmith]

That might have been the 1982 or 83 storm. I could see it coming just like and tasted the dust on my tongue before the main part of the cloud got to us.

Re:Kanye ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes but nobody in Sydney cares what happens in Melbourne any way. In fact, nobody cares what happens in Melbourne, save for the odd union dispute.

Re:Kanye ...

[MichaelSmith]

Just like, nobody cares about you, AC.

Re:Kanye ...

[TapeCutter]

I've seen a few of them, that one look like the early 80's in Melbourne, this one covered a much wider area, and yes they do look awesome until they roll over your house but not as menacing as the 15km high smoke plume on black saturday.

Went to bed on Earth, Woke up on Mars

[syousef]

That's certainly how it felt. I was up at the crack of dawn and what an eerie red dawn it was. Never seen anything like it. It was interesting that earlier in the morning near dawn it was easier to capture the dust as it was stronger where I was.

Mind you it's nice and Sunny in Sydney today, so as usual this story's a little late.

Re:Went to bed on Earth, Woke up on Mars

[MaizeMan]

Wow. I just can't imagine waking up to that. Now I'm off to try to track down pictures of it on flickr.

Re:Went to bed on Earth, Woke up on Mars

[Matt_R]

Before and after. more. I was up before dawn.. I first thought it was just fog

Re:Went to bed on Earth, Woke up on Mars

[MaizeMan]

Thanks. Awesome photos. Though I can imagine it being a disturbing sight to walk up to, or in your case be to be revealed as the sun rose.

Re:Went to bed on Earth, Woke up on Mars

[__aaarnh3813]

The story isn't that late. The dust has moved North, and while it isn't as bad as you guys had it yesterday, Cairns is covered in the stuff today. I'm amazed it has moved 2500km (over 1500 miles) in such a short time and is still so noticeable, although for some reason it is not the red colour that Sydney had yesterday.

Re:Went to bed on Earth, Woke up on Mars

[MichaelSmith]

The submission form should have a field for "don't bother with this article after [date]"

Re:Went to bed on Earth, Woke up on Mars

[Anonymous Coward]

I woke up around 10am, looked out the window and the world was orange. Went back to sleep. I decided if the apocalypse was going to happen, I might as well sleep through it.

Re:Went to bed on Earth, Woke up on Mars

[Anonymous Coward]

No need to be suprised, it is not the same dust cloud, The one that went over sydney then continued on over the tasman towards NZ, brisbane is suffering from the same wind conditions but a different source for the dust and hence a different colour

Re:Went to bed on Earth, Woke up on Mars

[MrKaos]

Check this video of a 2007 Australian dust storm. This one was smaller than the dust storm we had yesterday. Mostly made up from iron ore particles - apparently it's going to be really good for the ocean. I can still smell it, there is another dust storm due on Saturday.

Re:Went to bed on Earth, Woke up on Mars

[GumphMaster]

For me it brought back memories of the sky during the Canberra bushfires in 2003... Similar effect, but a shed load less worrisome.

Re:Went to bed on Earth, Woke up on Mars

[TapeCutter]

Lived here nearly 50yrs and the climate certainly has been fucked up for the last 10 of those. In particular I now consistently get a layer of dust on my car in Melbourne in winter time. That "Mars feeling" is a good description of what it was like in Melbourne a couple of summers ago, except it was smoke from bushfires that shrouded the city for almost a month, we've had smoke/dust in the past that lasted for a day or two but not every day for 4 weeks.

Re:Went to bed on Earth, Woke up on Mars

[MadUndergrad]

I can see why it's a bad idea to fly a 'thopter into that.

Re:Went to bed on Earth, Woke up on Mars

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet, Brisbane itself is still 1700km km from Cairns

Re:Went to bed on Earth, Woke up on Mars

[LWATCDR]

I wouldn't be so sure it is "climate" change.
Weather does have cycles and anytime anything bad happens they blame climate change.
I live in South Florida and we got hit by three hurricanes in two years. It had been many years since we had gotten hit. Those years where really bad years for storms and everybody screamed it was Global Warming.
Well since then we have had below average seasons and no storms. Is global warming over?
Actually good meteorologists said that it was part of the natural cycle and had nothing to do with global warming but the news never reported that.
Your issues may be part of climate change but they may not be. I wouldn't go making statments like that with out a lot of proof or else when cycle changes you will have a lot of people saying that there is no global warming.
PS. You guys are burning too much coal. Your per person carbon output is often greater than the US. Build nuclear plants now but that is just a suggestion.

Re:Went to bed on Earth, Woke up on Mars

[Anonymous Coward]

Your strawman completely betrays your agenda. Whatever the grandparent actually thinks about how man is affecting the atmosphere, he never used the terms "climate change" or "global warming" in the sense you imply. He merely indicated that the climate where he is, i.e. the prevailing weather, was different in the last 10 years.

Re:Went to bed on Earth, Woke up on Mars

[riverat1]

As is commonly said you can't attribute specific weather events to climate change. What climate change does is to change the chances of a specific weather event occurring from 5% to 10% for example (or 10% to 5% for that matter). Another way to look at it (using your hurricanes) is maybe instead of averaging a hurricane every 10 years you now average one every 8 years or alternatively maybe the average strength goes from 2.9 to 3.2 or some combination of that. One individual event doesn't prove anything but the average of all such events proves a lot. That's the difference between weather and climate.

Re:Went to bed on Earth, Woke up on Mars

[TapeCutter]

"Those years where really bad years for storms and everybody screamed it was Global Warming. Well since then we have had below average seasons and no storms."

The "extreme" weather predicted by models is statistically similar to the extreme highs and lows I have highlighted in the quote from your post above.

"Is global warming over?"

Yes, go back to sleep.

Re:Went to bed on Earth, Woke up on Mars

[LWATCDR]

What is funny is that you are trying to show me that this proves global warming.
I actually do believe in global warming and in cutting carbon emissions. I think there is enough evidence that it is prudent to try and cut carbon output.
But every time there is any bad weather global warming is the cause and not just bad weather.
As I said good meteorologists where saying no this is just part of a natural cycle. The news and nutters where screaming global warming.
But every stupid comment without proof is fuel for the doubters.
Trust me I have heard more than one person say I guess there is not global warming anymore because of last few low Hurricane seasons.
I can't blame most people since you had the green idiot brigade saying that this is the way it will be for now on because of global warming.
The green idiot brigade gives the doubters ammo.
Just like the idiots that are predicting that we could have a run away green house event which no creditable scientist believes.

Re:Went to bed on Earth, Woke up on Mars

[riverat1]

If the long term level of weather events changes in ways that are consistent with the theory of climate change then that supports the theory. It doesn't "prove" anything but it's one more piece of evidence among many.

Yes, there's lots of hyperbole on both sides of the issue. Lots of people who don't understand the science very well or who have political motivations making unsupportable statements. The complexity of climate theory makes it difficult for most people to take the time understand so it lends itself to that sort of stuff. I'm not sure what you can do about it though, I think it's largely just human nature.

Re:Went to bed on Earth, Woke up on Mars

[LWATCDR]

The thing is that there is a lot of debate about the effect of global warming on hurricanes even now.
Hurricanes are heat engines. The difference in heat is what drives them. Some experts think that they will should get weaker with global warming since global warming has a bigger impact at the poles and less in the tropics so the temperature differential will be less.
Others think that it will cause them to be stronger because there is just more energy in the system.
Historically there seems to have been a lot of very strong hurricanes during the great cooling but data from that time just isn't very good from the the tropics.
My problem is that every exaggeration, and jumped to conclusion leads us farther from the truth. When ever someone says this or that proves global warming it is a lie. There is no proof of global warming being caused by increased carbon.
There is a good amount of evidence of global warming and for me that is enough to act on but more data must be gathered.
That is why I said that I have seen a lot of evidence.
The thing is that everybody that is screams that global warming is a proven fact is not telling the truth. Just as much as the people claiming that there is no evidence.

Why are australians so dusty anyhow?

[Anonymous Coward]

And why are they using potable water to hose things down and drinking seawater?

Oh, that's their beer?

Re:Why are australians so dusty anyhow?

[PigIronBob]

Potable water?

You got ANY idea what fish do in it?

Re:Why are australians so dusty anyhow?

[PigIronBob]

Could not help thinking of this Tom Waits song on the drive home yesterday...


Well it's hotter 'n blazes and all the long faces
there'll be no oasis for a dry local grazier
there'll be no refreshment for a thirsty jackaroo
from Melbourne to Adelaide on the overlander
with newfangled buffet cars and faster locomotives
the train stopped in Serviceton less and less often
There's nothing sadder than a town with no cheer
VicRail decided the canteen was no longer necessary
there's no spirits, no bilgewater and 80 dry locals
and the high noon sun beats a hundred and four
there's a hummingbird trapped in a closed down shoe store


This tiny Victorian rhubarb
kept the watering hole open for sixty five years
now it's boilin' in a miserable March 21 st
wrapped the hills in a blanket of Patterson's curse
the train smokes down the xylophone
there'll be no stopping here
all ya can be is thirsty in a town with no cheer
no Bourbon, no Branchwater
though the townspeople here
fought the Vic Rail decree tooth and nail
now it's boilin' in a miserable March 21 st
wrapped the hills in a blanket of Patterson's curse
the train smokes down the xylophone
there'll be no stopping here
all ya can be is thirsty in a town with no cheer

Re:Why are australians so dusty anyhow?

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans thinking they are in a position to laugh at another countries beer. Now I've seen everything!

Re:Why are australians so dusty anyhow?

[Anonymous Coward]

try Boulevard Brewing Co
www.blvdbeer.com

Re:Why are australians so dusty anyhow?

[Anonymous Coward]

The really funny thing is Aussie beer is quite decent IMO.
Toohey's, Carlton, XXXX, are all major brand beer, but it sure as hell tastes a lot better than the American equivalents.

Hint, America: There's a reason you can buy Foster's everywhere in the US, but not everywhere in Australia.

Re:Why are australians so dusty anyhow?

[spartacus_prime]

American beer is akin to sex in a boat -- fucking close to water.

Re:Why are australians so dusty anyhow?

[Nefarious Wheel]

The really funny thing is Aussie beer is quite decent IMO.

There was a convention of brewers held at the Revolting Restaurant at the top of the Wrest Point hotel. Naturally at such a corporate piss-up, there was a bit of posturing going on. The head of Heineken ordered a Heineken, the CEO of Carlsberg ordered an Elephant, the head of Fosters grimaced and ordered a Fosters Lager, the chief of Budweiser ordered a can of their sex in a canoe, the guy from Brew 102 hid behind a cardboard cutout of himself holding a black and white can, and so on down the line it went -- each exec wanted to be seen standing behind their product.

This went on down the line until it reached the CEO of Cascade, who ordered a Coke. Everybody turned to look at him.

"Nah, mate, if none of you are having a real beer then I won't either."

hehehehe

[Anonymous Coward]

The funny thing is that people like you trot out all sorts of new things that you claim will disprove GW. And in every single case, it gets shot down. EVERY CASE. Easily disproved. When will you flat earther/creationist/teabaggers give it up?

Re:hehehehe

[Kokuyo]

How do you shoot down a simple argument of logic?

It's been this bad 70 years ago.
70 years ago we didn't pollute ANYWHERE as much as we do today.
If our polluting nature is supposed to be the cause for climate change, which would then lead to, say, DUSTSTORMS, how come the same thing happened when we had barely begun the polluting?

Climate change is real. It happened since the beginning of this dirtball. The question is, how much of what we see today is natural and how much is man-made. Considering that they also found that CO2 rises came after our atmosphere warming up and not before, I'd like for you to give me a few examples of shut down points in favour of us not having much to do with the situation.

It's easy to say "Everyone KNOWS that your arguments won't hold up". But have the common decency to prove it instead of making blanket statements about our intelligence.

I am fucking fed up with this behaviour. Time and again, people had to lower their eyes in shame after they had made fun of others for their outrageously unpopular statements and then being proven wrong after all. How can any sane and halfway intelligent being continue doing that when none of us have any kind of insight into the bigger picture? Have you ever checked which scientists have proclaimed human induced climate change? Have you checked their work? Have you checked their numbers? Their conclusions? Have you checked whether their institutes are low on cash and just freaking needed the publicity?

Same goes for any opponents of human induced climate change, by the way. Same rules for all of us. The difference between you and me is that I don't call you stupid just because you have a different opinion than I have. All I call you is frickin' rude.

Re:hehehehe

[somersault]

70 years ago we didn't pollute ANYWHERE as much as we do today

(citation needed)

(I'm not saying it isn't true, but in the west at least it seems we have been trying to cut down on our emissions, and I don't have any data comparing emissions from power plants, factories, cars, shuttle launches etc etc over the last century).

In the 1940s, air pollution received greater attention in the United States when smog was noticed in Los Angeles. Visibility was only three blocks and people suffered from smarting eyes, respiratory discomfort, nausea, and vomiting. California passed the first state air pollution law in 1947, and the first National Air Pollution Symposium in the United States was held in 1949. Initially, municipal governments were responsible for the passage and enforcement of such legislation.

(from http://www.epa.gov/apti/course422/apc1.html ).

Might also want to look into the Industrial Revolution of the 1800s (see here for pretty pictures).

Re:hehehehe

[cheekyboy]

sydney is in australia mate.

look it up

Re:hehehehe

[master5o1]

Dust storms caused by draught, draught caused by the overusing the rivers and lakes for crop irrigation and drinking water. The next (world?) war will be for water. Get your super-soakers ready.

Re:hehehehe

[master5o1]

(people (who speak in brackets (must like that weird language (which i think is called))))

lisp.

Re:hehehehe

[hesaigo999ca]

Being a devil's advocate to a devil's advocate is a nasty job, you have to contradict yourself all the time just to prove your point.

Seriously though, I do agree not everyone makes informed statements and just blast their opinions, however I have read scientific journals on both sides that do put up a great argument for both sides...hence why so many people are just on the fence about this one.

I hope that all this hoopla is propaganda, and that climate change is natural and nothing man made, however I would still like to know if it keeps getting worse, what sort of system do we have to alert us when ...the next storm hits, or the next volcano or the next....cause if it keeps getting bigger and bigger in damages or size of disaster, we need to prepare for certain level where the next earthquake might knock off California off the face of the map...! If that happens , pretty much 80% of Hollywood is gone, say good buy to Jack Bauer!

Re:hehehehe

[dangitman]

If our polluting nature is supposed to be the cause for climate change, which would then lead to, say, DUSTSTORMS, how come the same thing happened when we had barely begun the polluting?

If our polluting nature is supposed to be the cause for climate change, which would then lead to, say, RAINSTORMS, how come the same thing happened when we had barely begun the polluting?

Because duststorms and rainstorms are a natural phenomenon. They've pretty much always happened. It's the pattern and causes of these phenomenon which are studied by climate science.

Re:hehehehe

[somersault]

Haven't actually tried it (but sounds like I'd enjoy it).

Re:hehehehe

[somersault]

My post was in response to a comment about general climate change, not just Australia. I'm pretty sure that by "we", the GGP meant "humanity".

I've probably known Sydney was in Australia since I was about 7 years old.

Re:hehehehe

[Pax681]

70 years ago we didn't pollute ANYWHERE as much as we do today.

actually i think you will find that there was FAR more CO2 output then.

funnily enough ths is according to Bjorn Lomborg , the chap who wrote the book "the sceptical environmentalist", he also did a video presentation it find someof his videos here, he's very good and cuts through much of the FUD

Veho link to a critique of the man made global warming theory(and inconvenient truth. the great global warming conspiracy),us congressional testimoney 2007, then here ,then here and then we have his site right here and finally Penn and Teller on environmental hysteria, they have quite the crack research team
now you sir, are being rude and patronising and also very presumptuous. you have to recognise the FUD and also that there are rather a lot of people making rather a lot of money out of the environmental "movement".

i would also propose that it is also a fact that human c02 emissions are far less than those from volcanoes and c02 is actually not a major greenhouse gas when compared to the emissions(methane,ethane,propane and butane) from bovine animals, termites, and various other natural sources of greenhouse gases.

now ,yes, we contribute but only to part of a natural cycle and there IS a natrural cycle.

Bjorn is not alone in making these statements of fact and is backed by many other people in this field.

as i said, all i could call you is rude, presumptuous and closed minded

Re:hehehehe

[Pax681]

if you have probs with the veho link then use this google video link that will play the full 54 mins here

Re:hehehehe

[riverat1]

I think if you investigate it you will find that annual volcanic emissions of CO2 are less than 5% of human emissions from burning fossil fuel.

Re:hehehehe

[master5o1]

I'm just basing this on random knowledge I have picked up. Never actually seen real lisp code (except maybe wikipedia example lulz).

Re:hehehehe

[Pax681]

i think if you add up all the natural emissions of green house gases then nature kicks human ass at it

Re:hehehehe

[riverat1]

Yes, the yearly carbon cycle releases a huge amount of CO2 then reabsorbs it. If humans weren't emitting excess CO2 the level of it in the atmosphere would go up and down 5-10 ppm in a yearly cycle but would remain around the same base yearly average. The increase in CO2 (and decrease in O2) in the atmosphere corresponds well with the amount of fossil fuels burned and deforestation that takes place.

Re:hehehehe

[Pax681]

did you even watch the veho linky?

Re:hehehehe

[riverat1]

I've seen it before. Showing people saying stupid stuff does nothing to discredit the science. They aren't scientists. Bjorn Lomborg and Ross Gelbspan is not a climate scientists either. You get no argument from me that plenty of people are over the top on their beliefs but I think Penn & Teller cherry picked their cuts too (of course nearly everyone does that to some extent). Nothing in the video disproves the science of climate change.

Re:hehehehe

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think that draught animals caused the drought. The dust storm might have some relation to deforestation though. That'll cause climate change, as well. Back in the Dream-time, I heard that there were trees in the Aussie interior.

Sureal Images

[Techman83]

This was posted on one of the Aussie mailing lists I'm a member of, absolutely sureal. Wish I could have seen it, bit of a drive from the West coast and I believe they were grounding planes at one point.

Re:Sureal Images

[ryszard99]

Yup, those pix are exactly what it was like. I too was up at the crack and wondered what that weird orange light was outside. it was only when i when upstairs to look out the windows (the downstairs window faces our neighbours wall (about 3m away) that i was totally amazed.

i ride a motorbike into the city each day from the hills district (about 30kms) and it was horrible, there was red dust everywhere. still tho' at about 0645 the traffic wasnt so bad, but my bike looked like i took it to the outback when i got to work.

Re:Sureal Images

[zippthorne]

Wow. So, Sydney looks like Blade Runner!

Re:Sureal Images

[jamesswift]

Here's a few I took on my way to work...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesswift/sets/72157622435317234/

Re:Sureal Images

[MichaelSmith]

Better clean your driveline. That stuff is abrasive.

The Energy of Global Warming

[reporter]

The reporter who wrote the news article says, "But all reported they had come out largely unscathed from the storm, one of the worst on record."

These worst-on-record, high-energy climatic phenomena -- hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, dust storms, etc. -- tell the real story of global warming. Burning fossil fuels emits energy into the atmosphere. Over a long period of time, that energy dissipates into the "cold" of outer space.

Over the past century, this injection of energy into the atmosphere was caused by the (very) roughly 1 billion Westerners. In the current century, there will be roughly 3 billion (including the Indians and the Chinese, who are buying cars left and right) apes who are injecting energy into the atmosphere.

Will the "cold" of outer space absorb enough surplus heat from the atmosphere at a sufficiently fast rate? Is anyone using a supercomputer to model this heat equation?

What sort of climatic catastrophy will occur when 3 billion apes -- with their automobiles, power plants, lawn mowers, etc. -- inject a daily, massive pulse of energy into the atmosphere?

Re:The Energy of Global Warming

[Anonymous Coward]

A vacuum isn't "cold" per-se, it certainly has no capacity to absorb heat energy since there is no matter there to absorb it.

Re:The Energy of Global Warming

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess we get to wait and see?

Re:The Energy of Global Warming

[Anonymous Coward]

A) it is not the worst on record at all, it is the worst in 20 years. There have been significantly worse dust storms in Australia over the past 200 years. B) it is was NOT a high energy climatic phenomena, it is was the results of strong (but not excessive) winds over central Australia picking up the red dust, the prevailing winds happened to coincide nicely with this REGULAR outback phenomena to blow the cloud over major cities. This has about as much to do with global warming as a penguin farting in antarctica.

Re:The Energy of Global Warming

[yourassOA]

Yep never been any natural disasters before global warming? Fuck your stupid!

Re:The Energy of Global Warming

[khallow]

These worst-on-record, high-energy climatic phenomena -- hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, dust storms, etc. -- tell the real story of global warming. Burning fossil fuels emits energy into the atmosphere. Over a long period of time, that energy dissipates into the "cold" of outer space.

The energy of all human activity including burning fossil fuels is negligible. We can't measure its global effect on temperature. Carbon dioxide is a "greenhouse gas". That is, higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere cause the atmosphere to be more reflective to some degree to infra-red radiation (more accurately, it plugs some of the "holes" leftover from water vapor) in the frequency range that is emitted by both the surface and the lower atmosphere. As I understand it, that reduces the heat radiated to space and raises the temperature at ground level by a small amount.

Higher near surface temperatures can cause more energetic weather, but it depends also on how much heat at the top of weather clouds can be radiated into space. My understanding here is that there is some reduction in heat radiation at the top of clouds (and hence storms and other weather phenomena), but not enough to reduce the temperature differential between ground and cloud top. That means somewhat more energetic weather in general though local weather conditions continue to be more important.

In any case, I haven't heard that the temperature increase over the past few centuries is sufficient enough to cause dramatically more energetic weather. Natural variation is instead probably responsible for these extremes. Well that and the media's sudden interest in extreme weather phenomena.

Re:The Energy of Global Warming

[rtb61]

The dust/topsoil has nothing to do with global warming, it is all about farmers ploughing up their fields without keeping a close eye on weather forecasts (can be tricky), or failing to shift to more modern farming techniques http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-till_farming. Sticking them with a fine, especially the large globally owned corporate farms might put an end to these man made storms.

Oddly enough when it comes to green house impact these topsoil storms reduce global warming as they add necessary trace elements to the oceans which promote carbon consuming algae etc. but not really the best way to go about it.

Re:The Energy of Global Warming

[Anonymous Coward]

farmers have nothing to do with this either, The area this came from is australia's red centre, Not farm land.

Re:The Energy of Global Warming

[TapeCutter]

"As I understand it, that reduces the heat radiated to space and raises the temperature at ground level by a small amount."

Roughly one in every four CO2 molecules in the atmosphere has been put there by humans since the start of the industrial revolution, most of it in the last 50yrs.

CO2 absorbs IR radiated from the Earth and converts it into kinetic energy, after a certain time it will remit the energy as a phioton and slow down again.

This means that in the stratosphere where molecules are widely spaced the CO2 has a high chance of either escaping to space or remmiting a photon that escapes to space. Models (Hansen late 80's) predicted this would cause a cooling stratosphere and indeed sattelite mesurements have confirmed the predictions.

However in the bottom 5Km of atmosphere, where our weather takes place, the molecules are packed tighter and the CO2 is more likely to lose the kinetic energy by transfering it in a random collision with another molecule.

It's common for psuedo-skeptics such as Bob Carter to conflate the startosphere measurements with ground measurements in order to dishonestly push their adgenda.

"I haven't heard that the temperature increase over the past few centuries is sufficient enough to cause dramatically more energetic weather. Natural variation is instead probably responsible for these extremes. Well that and the media's sudden interest in extreme weather phenomena."

The jury is still out on observations of more severe weather but fundementally more heat means more turbulence. I don't think anyone knows how significant that extra turbulence might turn out to be but natural variation on top of the AGW trend is almost certainly feeding the seemingly constant rewriting of record books.

Re:The Energy of Global Warming

[cheekyboy]

All you need is another 10-20 million car owners and oil will again spike to 150-300 and more.

Reserves of current fields are diving.

Re:The Energy of Global Warming

[Anonymous Coward]

But I don't own a stupid.
And if I did, I would not be interested in sexual intercourse with it.

So to issue a correction:

Fuck, You're stupid!

Re:The Energy of Global Warming

[tomhudson]

Yep never been any natural disasters before global warming? Fuck your stupid!

But I don't own a stupid.
And if I did, I would not be interested in sexual intercourse with it.

Why aren't you interested in sex with a dumb blonde?

Re:The Energy of Global Warming

[khallow]

This means that in the stratosphere where molecules are widely spaced the CO2 has a high chance of either escaping to space or remmiting a photon that escapes to space. Models (Hansen late 80's) predicted this would cause a cooling stratosphere and indeed sattelite mesurements have confirmed the predictions.

Sorry, but I didn't get why the stratosphere would cool since a) CO2 is absorbing more energy than otherwise would be absorbed, making the layer more energetic, and b) that energy eventually escapes to space anyway. Perhaps the problem is that I'm just thinking of the stratosphere in strictly distance terms. After all, the stratosphere is a phase change in the atmosphere not a particular height above sea level.

This means that in the stratosphere where molecules are widely spaced the CO2 has a high chance of either escaping to space or remmiting a photon that escapes to space. Models (Hansen late 80's) predicted this would cause a cooling stratosphere and indeed sattelite mesurements have confirmed the predictions.

The thing is the record books would be constantly rewritten anyway. Most places have at most a century or two of data. That means roughly a 0.5-1% chance per measured variable per location of some extreme event. Even considering that there's huge correlation in weather data, it remains that one would expect to see a lot of extreme records made each year even in the total absence of any climate change of any sort.

Re:The Energy of Global Warming

[ultranova]

Burning fossil fuels emits energy into the atmosphere. Over a long period of time, that energy dissipates into the "cold" of outer space.

Burning fossil fuels emits an insignificant amount of energy in the atmosphere. However, it also puts greenhouse gasses there amongst the exhaust, which then trap Sun's heat.

And outer space is just a few degrees above absolute zero, which is cold and not "cold" by any reasonable standard.

Will the "cold" of outer space absorb enough surplus heat from the atmosphere at a sufficiently fast rate? Is anyone using a supercomputer to model this heat equation?

Yes, the blood-freezing chill of outer space is plenty enough to absorb the puny heat generated by any and all activities of man. According to Wikipedia, the yearly total electricity usage of the world (5.67×10^19 J) is much less than the energy from the Sun that strikes the Earth each day (1.5×10^22 J). It's the greenhouse effect caused by the exhaust that's the killer; surplus heat from actually burning the fuel is beneath measuring.

What sort of climatic catastrophy will occur when 3 billion apes -- with their automobiles, power plants, lawn mowers, etc. -- inject a daily, massive pulse of energy into the atmosphere?

Given that an average hurricane, again according to Wikipedia, releases more energy per second than Fat Man did on Nagasaki, I'd say that "massive" means quite a bit more than you'd think in this context. On the other hand, the exhaust - carbon dioxide, to be exact - from all these appliances can and will cause problems.

Re:The Energy of Global Warming

[riverat1]

Stratospheric cooling is largely due to ozone depletion because the major source of stratospheric heat is the IR radiation adsorbed by ozone. Increase CO2 also contributes to stratospheric cooling but I haven't got my head around the exact mechanism for that yet.

Re:The Energy of Global Warming

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything I have heard/read says this is indeed the biggest (widest area/amount of dust) in 70 years, much larger than the one 20 years ago.

Whether or not global warming contributed to the many recent years of drought which added to the dust storm is another question entirely, but possibly not as completely unrelated as you try and imply with your comment on methane release in Antarctica.

Re:The Energy of Global Warming

[shplorb]

I'd say the more plausible explanation for this one is that extensive rains earlier in the year over the Lake Eyre basin resulted in fine silt being deposited over the thousands of square kilometres of floodplains as the water made its way over months towards the lake. The floods have gone and the silt has dried up then been picked up by an unusually big gust of wind that has carried it further than it normally would.

Anyone who's spent some time out bush would have encountered at least one dust storm before.

Re:The Energy of Global Warming

[TapeCutter]

"Sorry, but I didn't get why the stratosphere would cool"

I think you answered your own question with b), as I understand it if the molecule/atom leaves earth it not only takes the aborbed IR with it but also the larger initial kinectic energy the atom/molecule had before it absorbed the IR.

Re:The Energy of Global Warming

[TapeCutter]

Thanks for the ozone link.

As I understand it, if the molecule/atom leaves earth it not only takes the aborbed IR with it but also the larger initial kinectic energy the atom/molecule had before it absorbed the IR. It's probably a fucked up analogy but the way I think of it is that the molecule leaving lowers the pressure ever so slighly*, temprature follows pressure.

*Slight, but the entire atmosphere will escape before the Sun swallows us.

Re:The Energy of Global Warming

[riverat1]

You're welcome.

To add a bit more to the ozone story the IR radiation that isn't captured in the stratosphere of course continues into the troposphere where it add a bit more energy to the situation. Ozone is also a greenhouse gas and human activities have increase the level of it in the troposphere so it's adding a bit to the overall global warming picture overall.

Brisbane pics

[PigIronBob]

Link to Brisbane pics

Driving into the storm

[SuperKendall]

There are some great pictures floating around, but this video shows what it looks like to come on the wall of dust...

Re:Driving into the storm

[mrgiles]

shows what it looks like to come on the wall of dust...

Good god. Is the video safe for work?

Re:Driving into the storm

[psiclops]

that video is from a dust storm in 2007

Re:Driving into the storm

[SuperKendall]

Ah, my bad - saw it linked related to the recent storm. Still, it shows something like what happened I imagine...

Re:Driving into the storm

[The_mad_linguist]

I think you accidentally linked to a clip from The Mummy instead.

Extra filters and duct tape

[Animats]

If you know this is coming, get extra air filters, use the absolute kind (like 3M Filtrete), and be prepared to change them frequently. With absolute filters, the filters will gradually stop letting air through as they clog, so you must inspect them regularly or have clogged-filter sensors. The usual fibreglas filters don't even try to stop 100% of the particles above the filter's size limit, but they tend to still pass air even when clogged, so neglecting them doesn't stop airflow.

And use duct tape to fix any leaks around the filters.

Now that the US has been operating in the sandbox for years now, keeping gear going during sandstorms is well understood.

Re:Extra filters and duct tape

[Critical Facilities]

If I may refine your point, rather than the "off the shelf" 3M filters, for a Data Center, you'll want to get something like this, or a comparable filter with a MERV Rating of at least 13 in order to prevent and control contamination. It is generally a good idea to be using these types of filters as SOP in Data Center CRAC Units.

Nucleation

[MichaelSmith]

So we should pump dust into the atmosphere over the west coast of .au and hope it nucleates precipitation before leaving the country?

Re:Nucleation

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't wish too hard, lest your wish be granted.

I'm old enough to have clear memories of Melbourne's '83 dust storm, and the "rain" that came with it. It's one thing when the skies turn red, but when it rains as well, that's something else altogether. If you thought the images of Sydney yesterday were somewhat apocalyptic, imagine red mud falling from the sky. That's right folks - it was like it was raining blood! Seriously weird.

Re:Nucleation

[MichaelSmith]

I was there too. I don't recall the rain that time but I know that rain is always dirty because of the dust it contains.

Re:Nucleation

[Merls the Sneaky]

Glad that didn't happen Conroy would have considered it a sign from god that he push on with the filter. :P

Oblig.

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Australia, outback visits you!

From country NSW

[Anonymous Coward]

From someone that lived inland for a couple of decades I must say its amazing that this dust storm made such huge headlines. We used to get stuff like this all the time! Its amazing it makes such huge headlines because this one headed east alot more than most others.

Yet when these dust storms were happening a town north of Canberra experienced a twister (which is rare in Australia) nobody bothers mentioning it.

Re:From country NSW

[Tarsir]

You are surprised that things which happen all the time don't make headlines; while something unprecedented made huge headlines? Really?

Got sandworm?

[tukia]

Where's the sandworms?

Photos in The Big Picture

[Anonymous Coward]

Photos in The Big Picture

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/09/dust_storm_in_australia.html

Overgrazing 70 years ago - Rabbit plague

[FriendlyLurker]

70 years ago the Rabbit plague was in full swing (until the Myxoma Virus was introduced in 1950's). Rabbits combined with overgrazing it amplified El Ninyos drying effect on Australia (Learning from history: land and pasture degradation episodes in Australiaâ(TM)s rangelands).

Today due to climate changes effects on the ocean currents, El Ninyo could quite possibly become permanent rather than a periodic event - which if happens, will freeze eastern Australia in a permanent drought conditions (and South America in permanent flooding conditions). A bit of drought in half of Australia and a few major floods in South America would be the very least of the worlds worries though... climate change screwing up the ocean current system is implicated in the Anoxic event which eventually led to the death of 90% of life on earth

>Climate change is a farce. im a sydneysider, this is the worst duststorm we've had in 70 years
No worries mate, the planet will be just fine. Nothing we can do to the planet short of complete nuclear Armageddon that Mother earth can't recover from in a few million years. Its not the planet we have to worry about... its our survival on it as a destructive, greedy, self serving species - and that's just a random sampling of our "elected" leaders

Is there anyone...

[Anonymous Coward]

...in this thread who understands that this is not a product of global warming but that global warming does exist?

Sheeesh.

Re:Is there anyone...

[ErikZ]

Still waiting for evidence of global warming that exceeds the margin of error.

Re:Is there anyone...

[ultranova]

Still waiting for evidence of global warming that exceeds the margin of error.

Isn't it just amazing how wide your margins can get when you have good money riding on not exceeding them?

12 monkeys

[cheekyboy]

Everyone knows it, reducing the population by 80% is the key.
But no one is going to say, "we must kill 4 billion people by 2020".
Germany learned the hardway in just trying less than 0.01% of that figure.

Dont worry , you're fellow Rothchilds and Bilderbergs and elite of the planet have a cure for the
scurge of the human plague. The h1n1 virus to eliminate the 80%

Re:12 monkeys

[master5o1]

Test to see if one is worthy to survive the Human Culling:

Take a large quantity of the very dangerous liquid, DHMO. Have a Liquid DHMO - (80%) Nitrogen Gas boundary in a chamber. The person taking the test must pass through the DHMO-Nitrogen boundary and travel between the two safe zones. If any (non major) body part makes contact with, or passes through the boundary layor then it is likely to require amputation. Breathing near the boundary layor is likely to kill. Breathing in the DHMO liquid is likely to kill.

Shit. I posted to much crap to make this modded funny :(

Drought Resistant Plants

[Nein Volts]

I hope they get smart and figure out a way to store water to start and raise plants to stabilize their area. It might even knock off a few degrees of heat during the evening. (If you live near a forest you experience the cool 'air conditioning' that plants can do for you.)

Midwest US Dustbowl

[nurb432]

While it would be inconvenient, until you have years of endless dust storms the size of states that reach nearly from coast to coast, don't act like it was the end of the world.

Re:Midwest US Dustbowl

[Macgrrl]

A dust storm that covers blows through close to a third of a continent isn't of trivial size. How big is "the size of states", we only have 7 and for the most part they are pretty large.

Re:Midwest US Dustbowl

[riverat1]

The continental United States and Australia are of similar size, 8,080,464 km2 to 7,683,300 km2 and shape. If this storm crossed 1/3 of Australia it's equivalent to a dust storm from Oklahoma hitting Georgia and the Carolina's.

And not one Arrikis joke/comment????

[e40]

/.'ers you disappoint me.

Re:And not one Arrikis joke/comment????

[Macgrrl]

You obviously missed the sandworm comment above.

One Word: Tanis

[Anonymous Coward]

Raiders of the Lost Opera House?