Slashdot Mirror
Heat Waves In Australia Are Getting More Frequent, and Hotter
vikingpower writes "In a landmark report on bushfires and climate change (PDF), the Australian Climate Council concludes that heat waves in Australia, as driven by climate change, are becoming more frequent — and that they get hotter. 'It is crucial that communities, emergency services, health services and other authorities prepare for the increasing severity and frequency of extreme fire conditions,' says the Council in the report. Sarah Perkins, one of the report's co-authors,
was interviewed by The Guardian Australia. '"While we can't blame climate change for any one event, we can certainly see its fingerprint. This is another link in the chain." Perkins said her latest work had analyzed heatwave trends up to 2013. She said the trend "just gets worse – it's a bit scary really."' In 2009, the United Nations World Meteorological Organization signaled that a Southeast Australian heatwave was the hottest in 100 years."
"The report, which will be released in full in February, finds that climate change is having a key influence on a trend that has seen the number of hot days in Australia double and the duration and frequency of heatwaves increase in the period between 1971 and 2008."
So, yes, it's global warming.
get the tinfoil hats on, here come the climate changers!!
I think you'll find the tinfoil hat wearers are those who think that the scientific community are all conspiring to earn big bucks from climate change, although quite how they earn this money is never spelled out. Odd, that. Then the climate-change deniers have no trouble believing the industry-sponsored pseudo-science of the global warming denial industry that actually does have big money behind it from the likes of Exxon of Exxon Valdez fame. Yeah, you have no trouble believing the polluters, do you?
Get a fucking grip. The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is a fact. Out of thousands of peer-reviewed papers you'd be doing well if you can find one single paper that says otherwise.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
stop living in the desert.
What if the desert comes to you?
Drill baby drill - on Mars
I'll buy one, but only if I can act all smug to my friends who still drive gasoline-powered cars, especially hybrids. I'm already practicing saying "Well, I guess driving a hybrid is okayyyy....I mean if you're not ready to go all the way and REALLY help."
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
There is a nonzero chance that your third possibility is correct. But nonzero is all I'm going to give you. Have a look at the amounts of greenhouse gasses put into the atmosphere by a large natural phenomenon, vulcanism
Looks like the numbers are from 2009 or so. Summary: It takes ~3 days of humans' output to equal one year of volcanic greenhouse gas emissions.
The factors that are out of our control contribute a tiny fraction of our total.
Look, the west is working on lowering their emissions.
However, China alone emits over 1/3 of all CO2 emissions. Worse, by 2020, they will account for over 1/2 assuming that no other nation lowers theirs (and if other nations lower theirs, then it will probably be around 2017). In addition, the rest of BRICS are busy increasing their emissions.
And with kyoto and other nations trying to tie emissions to individuals, rather than to GDP, this will continue to happen. The only way to stop this is to have ALL NATIONS lower their emissions at the same time. In addition, it needs to be tied to GDP, rather than per capitia. Finally, it needs to be based on empirical data, not SWAGs.
And the only way to make sure that ALL nations work on bringing emissions down is for nations to tax all consumed goods, local and imported, with a tax based on where the good and its parts come from. In addition, ideally, it would include something for the transportation of the item.
Until that point, emissions WILL rise faster.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"It's possible that both the AGW deniers and AGW alarmists are wrong. Climate change could be real, but caused by natural factors that are out of our control, the same ones that have caused ice ages and warm periods in the past when carbon outputs were nowhere near as high as they are now."
The problem with this is that it is exactly what many of those so-called AGW "deniers" have been saying all along.
to earn big bucks from climate change, although quite how they earn this money is never spelled out
Climate Change Is the Next $10 Trillion Opportunity
While I'm not debating that the climate is changing, let's also not pretend that this is not all about $$$. .
The article you have linked shows that there are business opportunities created as a result of dealing with climate change. It does not show how climate scientists benefit from the results of their studies going one way or the other, as is often alleged by climate change deniers.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Arctic Ice extent expanding this year is no surprise--most climate scientists predicted that would happen this year. Why? Because it was SO LOW last year, it basically had no direction to go but up.
If you roll snake eyes on your first roll, don't be surprised if your next roll is better.
Had broken it every winter since 1971? Because in australia last year they had to add 2 colors to the temperature charts because how hot things were then, and this year things aren't so far from that, and if 2 years is not enough you have the previous 40 contiguous years where the same trend was there. Thats the difference between long standing climate trends and the weather in a particular season of a limited area. Is the forest the one that matters, not the tree you just stumbled upon. And if you can see the forest because you are not high enough, maybe you should check what the people that can see the whole forest say. The cold fact is that the world as a whole is getting hotter.
Interior Australia seems to be suffering a terrible drought while Northern Australia is being inundated.
Australia: Percent of Normal Precipitation
Fanatically anti-fanatical
As a slightly different slant on this troll rousing topic, it is worth noting a few things.
1) Per capita, Australia is the worlds highest emitter of greenhouse gases as we use mostly coal to generate electricity. Furthermore, we are one of the worlds largest coal miners/exporters and so contribute significantly to global CO2 production elsewhere.
2) In September, Australia elected a new government that is predominantly in the hands of climate change deniers. The Prime Minister (Tony Abbott) is on the public record saying that climate change is "crap" (http://blogs.abc.net.au/victoria/2009/12/climate-change-is-crap-tony-abbot-said-to-the-pyrenees-advocate.html). Amongst the new government's first acts was to defund the Climate Commission (along with several other "green" initiatives of previous governments). They are also committed to repealing the existing Carbon Tax legislation, but cannot (yet) force this through the upper house (Senate) which they do not control.
3) In response to its defunding, the Climate Commission reformed itself as the Climate Council, raising around $1 million in under two weeks. Whilst not big bikkies in US terms, this is extremely significant in a small population country like Australia that demonstrates that many Australians feel very strongly about climate change - strongly enough to not only make a one off donation but to commit to regular, monthly donations to support the ongoing public information work of the Climate Council.
From their "about" page http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/about-us/
"The Climate Council is an independent non-profit organisation funded by donations by the public. Our mission is to provide authoritative, expert advice to the Australian public on climate change."