Heat Waves In Australia Are Getting More Frequent, and Hotter 279
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 Lord Humongous! (Score:2, Informative)
Once again, you'll make him unleash his dogs of war as you send your weaklings into the field to to find a rig big enough to haul that fat tank of gas...
No more Men at Work... No Midnight Oil...No wonder Australia is going to hell in a hand basket.
Re:The Lord Humongous! (Score:4, Interesting)
The Youngs are powered by high voltage electricity, not gas.
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Australia has the highest per capita level of greenhouse gas emissions in the developed world.
http://takvera.blogspot.com/2011/11/record-increase-in-greenhouse-gas.html [blogspot.com]
A Third Possibility (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think, "earth's history" and "100 years" shouldn't be comparible time-spans in concern over temperature change.
Re:A Third Possibility (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure, in the Hadean period 4600+ million years ago the Earth's atmosphere had no free oxygen.
The far distant past is not the issue. The ability of the human race to survive isn't the issue either. The issue is the ability of the society we have built to cope with environmental changes that may occur on the timescale of a single lifetime.
A +2C change would result in a world that looks drastically different than ours is now. But if that change occurred over a thousand years it'd be practically imperceptible to people. The same change over a century would be a major challenge to our economy. How well you adapt depends on how mobile your means of making a living are. If you're an investment banker, it's no problem at all to shift your money out of harm's way. If you're an American rancher, you may find yourself in a "Bottle Imp" scenario. If you're a Bangladeshi subsistence farmer you are SOL.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're argument belongs in the "Haha, that's a good one" category.
Re: (Score:2)
More likely, the last hundred years are the period we have reasonably accurate temperature readings for a significant fraction of the world.
Re:A Third Possibility (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [usgs.gov]
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that human contributions have only been going one way: increasing over time. Gas due to volcanoes is random.
Oh, also, you're wrong about the magnitude. According to http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php [usgs.gov], "all studies to date of global volcanic carbon dioxide emissions indicate that present-day subaerial and submarine volcanoes release less than a percent of the carbon dioxide released currently by human activities."
Re:A Third Possibility (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with this is that it is exactly what many of those so-called AGW "deniers" have been saying all along.
Well, to be fair, the AGW deniers said that only after it was repeatedly demonstrated that there was in fact some variety of global warming going on. This is the "The barge is headed towards the bridge abutment, but that's not the fault of the engines, it's the current instead." argument. Which doesn't make much sense, because even in that situation, you still want to do everything you can to solve the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
"Well, to be fair, the AGW deniers said that only after it was repeatedly demonstrated that there was in fact some variety of global warming going on."
That's not "being fair", that's being false. Part of my point was that it's not legitimate to lump everyone who disagrees into one "denier" category. That's about as accurate as saying all blacks are criminals or all Polish people are stupid.
Some of those who disagree did so from the very beginning, on the premise that it's the Sun and other natural factors that drives climate change, not CO2. Just a fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is just as scientifically invalid, and not helping. It's worth lumping you guys together because you're all making the same argument:
"I don't personally agree with the facts, so let's pretend they aren't there".
Re: (Score:2)
Which is just as scientifically invalid, and not helping. It's worth lumping you guys together because you're all making the same argument:
"I don't personally agree with the facts, so let's pretend they aren't there".
Which is only opinion, also inaccurate, and more to the point: off-topic. Which is not helping.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. The correlations, core theory, and lack of other matching explanations totally invalidate every such point raised, and have been done to a sufficient degree that these people are basically tremendous liars, pretending to be moderate, while exposing a fundamentally indistinct point.
Notably, you call a refutation of your own point "off topic" because, of course you would.
Re: (Score:2)
"Not really. The correlations, core theory, and lack of other matching explanations totally invalidate every such point raised, and have been done to a sufficient degree that these people are basically tremendous liars, pretending to be moderate, while exposing a fundamentally indistinct point."
Yes, really.
This conversation was NOT ABOUT whether the "deniers" were correct. And even if it had been, you are simply incorrect about their arguments. I have no intention of getting into a long argument about it here, though, because that's OFF-TOPIC.
Re: (Score:2)
And it's also demonstrably not true through the data, it, at best, sounds more moderate.
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change could be real, but caused by natural factors that are out of our control
That would be one of the "skeptics" main talking points. It's not really an argument, since it is addressed extensively in literature. But the public conversation has trouble with "it's cold in New York, AGW must be a hoax".
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, we can't be absolutely sure the nutter randomly tossing gasoline and lit matches around started the forest fire, but we can be reasonably certain he's not helping the situation any.
Re: (Score:2)
But see, that's also a demonstrated falsehood, and you yourself said "nuh uh, it's not getting warmer" in this post. [slashdot.org]
So... everyone, PRman is a liar. Saying exactly what he said no one was saying.
Localized Global Warming? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No global temperature increase in 10 years?
I call bullshit.
http://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/wmo_1119_en.pdf [wmo.int]
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No, no it hasn't. That's a claim that's pretty well fabricated. oops, you believed and repeated a lie [nasa.gov]. Are you going to recant?
Re: (Score:2)
And it will continue until ALL nations work on it (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Total BS. (Score:3)
First, it is supposed to be based on historical data from 1906-2005. It is not based on previous data or on CURRENT data.
IT'S a chart that no one wants to top, but global warming's worst offenders, in absolute terms, are the US, China, Russia, Brazil, India, Germany and the UK. New calculations suggest that these nations are responsible for more than 60 per cent of the global warming between 1906 and 2005.
Basically, they cherry picked a small period of time. The fact that they stopped at 2005 is even more telling. Since 2005, US's emissions have dropped, while ALL of BRICS have gone way up.
Heck, here is a better map that shows more CURRENT data. [guardian.co.uk] It came from CO2. In this case, it shows 2008's. What is truely wicked is that China has been going up 10-15% EACH YEA
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By taxing all goods that we consume, then it puts all nations on an equal footing. And once we start taxing our own products, local companies will push local govs/utilities to change their ways.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Great, I love it. My country only has about 5 million people so by GDP we should be about to pollute about 60 times as much as the US per capita with its 300 million. I really look forward to the US in total producing about 1/200th (approximate number of states recognized by the UN) of the world's CO2 emissions. Give me gas guzzlers, screw any restrictions on industry and taxes, levies and fees because we're home free baby. Oh wait, did you only want to apply that against bigger countries as China and India
Re:And it will continue until ALL nations work on (Score:4)
What's with all the China-bashing? A nation with 1.35 billion people to feed and clothe has to get it's energy from somewhere. Not to mention all the products they are manufacturing for you in the West.
% of electricity generated from renewable sources [wikipedia.org]
China 17.88% USA 10 .05%
The Chinese government is promoting huge projects for investment in solar, wind and hydro.
I'm not saying they are innocent, but at least they seem to be trying to do something.
Re:And it will continue until ALL nations work on (Score:4)
To be fair to China they are working on dealing with the problem too. They lead the world in some forms of renewable energy and are building new nuclear plants. Their country is growing rapidly and they see how the west polluted as it did so, and so are unwilling to give up the same opportunity.
It's not as simple as China not caring or not making any effort, it's just that they are only now getting the skills and technology needed to be cleaner. Pollution is a big deal in China and they are making efforts to sort it out, but obviously it is going to take time and economic growth is running at 10% a year.
What we need to do is encourage them as much as possible, and develop new technologies with them in order to help. None of this treating China like the enemy that automatically steals all our tech. Aside from anything else we need to have clean tech become extremely cheap and widely available before Africa really starts to boom.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However, I would be the first to defend the Chinese and the rest who are simply being outsourced by the West to create all our junk. Its still OUR pollution, just because they are the ones getting paid to do it doesn't make it their fault.
I think we'll have to get past this bullshit guilt tripping some day. China isn't going to decrease its pollution because the West buys less of its junk. It'll do so because it is in its interests to do so. You should ask why that isn't the case now.
Re: (Score:3)
AE can help, but it can NOT replace it all. We need nukes, esp. thorium. It is insane to not have it.
But, I will say that greenpeace and others on the far left are fucking up, by choosing to ignore BRIC and other nations, thinking that they will simply stop their emissions, or that these are cleaner. Nothing could be further fro
Re:And it will continue until ALL nations work on (Score:4, Informative)
The parent post is correct, but Greenpeace does not dictate government policy in Australia.
Australia has 31% of the world's uranium reservers [world-nuclear.org] (the world's largest) and has in recent years declined production slightly (probably due to Germany's [europa.eu] and Japan's [nies.go.jp] 'efforts' that increase greenhouse gas emissions across Europe and Japan). Australia does not use nuclear power for energy generation or for military use or for icebreakers or any use other than ANSTO [ansto.gov.au] (small research lab that produces radioisotopes for medical use).
Australia could have gone nuclear ages ago, but didn't. Similarly to how it cut space research and plans to build rocket launch platforms, it is a country of little physics achievements that haven't been done by overseas people. The problem is that is also a county full of coal, and with other countries running out of coal, it might well be the place for coal globally over the next 50 years if policy doesn't change domestically.
Already the highest greehouse gas emitting OECD country in the world [garnautreview.org.au] in the future if the coal extractions can be seen large from space (like tar pits in Canada) then it might become the biggest contributing country to global warming on a global scale indirectly (due to use of its coal and nonuse of uranium, not to mention thorium).
Precipitation seems to have moved north (Score:5, Informative)
Interior Australia seems to be suffering a terrible drought while Northern Australia is being inundated.
Australia: Percent of Normal Precipitation [noaa.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
Interior Australia seems to be suffering a terrible drought while Northern Australia is being inundated.
Australia: Percent of Normal Precipitation [noaa.gov]
This is pretty normal in Australia, Interior of Australia has a long history of 4+ year droughts every decade or 2 then we get summers with insane levels of rainfall flooding everything, Australia rarely does things by the averages, it is usually one extreme or the other. I grew up on Australian farm. I vividly remember the long drought in the 80's and my father refers to that as a moderate one compared to what he had in the 60's and 70's. We have photos of our farm as a dust bowl in 30's as well, something
Is it just me? (Score:2)
There used to be a science based majority on /. but these days anything on climate science brings out mostly libertarian deniers-by-other-means. No there is no scientific debate.
Report is from a crowd funded organisation (Score:5, Informative)
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."
Re:Pshaw... it's just weather! (Score:5, Informative)
"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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"So, yes, it's global warming."
You are giving us a prime example of exactly what GP wrote.
Sure, AUS is having a heatwave. Even while much of the United States was having a record cold temperatures, and much of Europe has been experiencing its coldest weather in more than 10 years... Arctic ice extent is expanding again and the Antarctic summer is colder than usual, with even more sea ice.
You can't cherry-pick your heatwaves. This is GLOBAL climate we're talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pshaw... it's just weather! (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Arctic Ice extent expanding this year is no surprise--most climate scientists predicted that would happen this year. Why?
Most climate scientists would actually predict that ice extent will go up this year because, as every year, we get this thing called Winter. (Or were you referring to the year-on-year minimum or maximum extent?)
Re:Pshaw... it's just weather! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Pshaw... it's just weather! (Score:4, Informative)
Now, do people suddenly get more interested in global warming when it's hot outside? Sure! Why? Because people are essentially irrational, and don't live very long relative to the planet. That includes me and people I agree with, too. But it doesn't change the facts of a 35+ year trend.
Re: (Score:2)
First halve of january was the warmest ever measured in The Netherlands. Last winter was one the longest though. Stuff gets more extreme
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
much of Europe has been experiencing its coldest weather in more than 10 years
What? In huge areas of central Europe (Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, Hungary, Poland and large parts of Germany), there was no winter to spek of, so far. Trees are blooming, birds did not migrate south, the average temperatures are about 6 degrees C above normal.
Re:Pshaw... it's just weather! (Score:4, Interesting)
You are using page 1 of the global warming denier's handbook -- cherry-pick local minima to deny the trends. Yes, there is more arctic ice this year than last year, but last year was an extremely low point. The US has had one week of record cold, but not sustained record cold.
Next up you'll be saying that there hasn't been any increase in average temperatures since 1998 - ignoring the fact that 1998 was a massive outlier and that if you were to start witih 1997 or 1999 the trend of increasing temps is still, unfortunately, intact.
Re: (Score:2)
When we were in grade school we were taught that we are still coming out of the last ice age and that you could see it effect in ice sheets that don't normally exist like in Greenland. Every time I hear about global warming I'm reminded of this, and I don't think I have ever heard it mentioned when people are debating.
Global warming is not a concern for me since I think we need cleaner, cheaper, more efficient forms of manufacturing and energy production, and emissions control too but for much more immediat
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hiding behind trend vs. weather is statistically significant> .
Fixed that there.
I'm sorry, but, if you don't understand basic mechanics of science, you can't be outraged when you don't understand the conclusions of science.
Re: (Score:2)
God, damn, a simple "YHBT" will do.
Re: (Score:2)
I was complaining about the dead giveaways. Like "hide behind the science"
Re:Pshaw... it's just weather! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Also, 1100 new highs.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/records/ [noaa.gov]
Guess what climate change predicts? More variability.
Re:Pshaw... it's just weather! (Score:4, Interesting)
Houses were not insulated, most didn't even have plaster and lathing on the interior of the wall studs, the only heating was radiant heat from the fireplace, and if you underestimated the amount of wood you needed in September you were burning your furniture to keep alive by April. Clothing was limited to wool and cotton, with no way to really dry them when you got wet. The gods help you if your boots fell apart in the middle of winter and you didn't live close enough to town to get them fixed, very few people had the tools to do that. Some winters it was a miracle ANY of them survived.
My grandfather had a photo of himself, his brother and some neighbors, young men all, standing in front of a snow drift with shovels. On the other side of the drift you can see about a foot of the smoke stack of a locomotive. When my dad was young someone he knew drove his car from Michigan to Wisconsin across Lake Michigan, and people moved HOUSES across the ice on Lake Superior. When I was little I remember snow banks were frequently taller than my dad. My mom saw her first Christmas without snow on the ground in 1984, in the last ten years they've had snow on the ground on Christmas day twice and Grand Traverse Bay on Lake Michigan (not the big lake, just the Bay) has frozen thick enough to go ice fishing once.
Australia isn't the only place that has seen a century of warming.
Re: (Score:3)
The USA has broken 1000 record low temps in the last couple of months ...
Those are all daily record low temperatures, IOW the record for a specific day. No monthly or all time record low temperatures were broken in the cold snap in early January. [wunderground.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Show us the 30-year trend of cooling to balance out our trend and we'll listen to you. Until then shut the fuck up.
Re:Pshaw... it's just weather! (Score:4, Insightful)
Which says nothing about the *global* climate.
Here's a clue: the air mass that's breaking all the cold weather records? That air mass is actually unusually *warm* for this time of year. How can that be? Because it's not where it usually is, way up in Canada. At the same time many northern areas are getting record warm temperatures, and California is missing the rain it should be getting this time of year. The overall picture is of a *warm* winter, averaged over the northern hemisphere, but with temperature anomalies all over the place. Which is not in itself *climate*, but the kind of weather event climate models have been predicting for a decade or more now (citation: Easterling, David R., et al. "Climate extremes: observations, modeling, and impacts." Science 289.5487 (2000): 2068-2074.).
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, let's measure "global warming" in the Antarctic. Wait? What's that? The ships got frozen?
Well, we need to prove that the earth is warming up so let's get a rescue ship down there so that the researchers can start proving global warming. What's that? The rescue ship got stuck in the ice?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ice in Antarctica! What a concept!! Who's ever heard of such a thing?
Re:Pshaw... it's just weather! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
God damn, who is modding this shit up? Like, really? Do you want this terrible argument to be symbolic of your position?
Is it some kind of "I don't understand the difference between measurable long-term trends, and yesterday's weather, and I moderate?"
Re:ahh we're all going to die (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Misdirection. Scientists are not the ones looking to cash in -- they are being used by those who are looking to cash in, which is big business.
Easy. Just look at where Al Gore invests his money. Hopefully I don't have to spell out how to find that information.
Things, wh
Re: (Score:3)
The consensus in Wisconsin might be that the Packers are the best football team, but that doesn't make it fact. It would simply mean that the majority prefer to remain delusional, rather than change their long-held beliefs.
Your ability to compare peer reviewed scientific papers to loyalty to sports teams is noted.
That is not to suggest that ManBearPig is not real, but it takes more "6 out of 10 scientists believe ManBearPig is real and will kill everyone" to convince the rational mind.
It's a bit more than 6 out of 10. It's more like 13,926 out of 13,950. And it's not about "belief." It's about reaching a conclusion after rigorous research.
Re: (Score:2)
If you were trying to make money from climate research and looked around to see which side would bring the most bucks, you would come to the conclusion that the global warmist side has the most to offer.
The grants from government and government-like bodies are in the billions. Oil companies don't spend billions trying to disprove global warming despite what you may think. They can't, it would raise too many alarm bells and draw shareholder ire besides. Last figure I saw was $23 million [joannenova.com.au]... a tiny drop in the
Re:ahh we're all going to die (Score:5, Informative)
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 [yahoo.com]
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.
Where's the money? (Score:2, Insightful)
While I don't even consider myself among the "deniers" ... I think you have to be going around with a big, thick blindfold on, if you really believe the "pro climate change" researchers aren't getting some money out of it.
The federal government wants to push climate change as its platform to encourage all sorts of initiatives, and to do so, it needs the backing of numerous scientific studies. Most researchers sustain themselves largely based on government grants. Even NASA has been a big climate change prop
Re: (Score:3)
And spaceflight requires you to subscribe to the theory that the Earth is not flat. Point...?
Re:Where's the money? (Score:4, Insightful)
While I don't even consider myself among the "deniers" ... I think you have to be going around with a big, thick blindfold on, if you really believe the "pro climate change" researchers aren't getting some money out of it.
And how much money is flowing to the climate change deniers? Follow that money.
You'll find it dwarfs climate research grants significantly. If you think it's all a giant conspiracy to get money into the hands of researchers, you really need to up your medication because that's bordering on the paranoid delusional.
Besides this, money going to scientists doing real science is to produce accurate results. Only the money going to climate change deniers is being used to blatantly make stuff up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Great! Maybe we can get the crazy deniers to realise that the economy won't implode if we spend money on something other than oil subsidies.
$10 trillion worth of jobs? Why isn't everyone piling into that bandwagon?
Re: (Score:2)
While I'm not debating that the climate is changing, let's also not pretend that this is not all about $$$.
When the Maldives or New Orleans is underwater, in part because of climate change, people die needlessly. When the heat makes formerly arable land into desert, people starve. When formerly great sources of water dry up, people dehydrate and die.
So it's not all about money. It's partially about money: It's expensive to actually do something significant about climate change, and easier for the people in power to simply let the people without power die than it is to pay for fixing the problem.
Re:If you can't take the heat, (Score:5, Interesting)
stop living in the desert.
What if the desert comes to you?
Re: (Score:2)
stop living in the desert.
What if the desert comes to you?
Then it's your chance to become an economic migrant. Whee!
Re: (Score:2)
It does not seem to have stopped raining here in Blighty for about a month.
The climate is changing. We are seeing more and more extremes of Cold, Hot, Wind, Rain, Sun and Snow just to name a few.
Re: (Score:2)
In other news, building in a flood plain is bad. And forcing rivers into narrow channels like they did in Alberta is bad. Much like what has happened along the Mississippi river. And in other places in the Rockies, they've had record snowfall amounts. 5 meters instead of 2.5.
Funny that isn't it?
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Funny)
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."
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the oil used in the US comes from the US. The second largest source? Canada.
Why [npr.org] are you producing so much oil if it's so bad?
Re: (Score:2)
To melt all the damn ice?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you're attempting to refute data with a poem?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pointing out that people were writing about the heat in Australia many, many years ago.
Does data get refuted by a poem? No, of course not.
If you read the report, on p. 37 they comment that the dataset covers 35 years (1973-2009). The conclusion is based on that dataset. However, a poem written over 100 years ago suggests that conditions in Australia were well known even then. So... is there really a trend? There may be in the data, but the data doesn't span the time period of the poem.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Either that or it means that data are only available for 100 years.
You're not the sharpest tool in the box, son.
If the data is only available for the last hundred years, how can they claim this is anything unusual? That's about 0.000002% of the life of the planet.
Re:Hottest in 100 years = cooling down (Score:4, Funny)
exactly! a few billion years ago the planet was a super-hot ball of molten rock. therefore it's been way hotter in the past.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please supply your (statistically significant) data.