.

Thursday, November 14, 2019

G'Day - Not today, mate!

Sou | 10:54 PM Go to the first of 56 comments. Add a comment
Australia's politicians from the Liberal, National and Labor parties all vow that now isn't the right time to talk about climate change.

Soon there'll be not the tiniest gap between the droughts, fires, heat waves and floods so they'll be saved from ever having to talk about climate change and what they aren't doing about it.

Courtesy of Australia's national broadcaster:

If you're wondering about some of the references, here's a guide:

  • Karl Stefanovic - I don't know who he is (I don't watch television). I gather he's some tv host who's changed time slots or channels or something. You'll have to Google him if you're interested.
  • Dr Karl - is a popular Australian science lover who is in turn loved by many.
  • Quiet Australians - our Prime Minister Scott Morrison wants to silence any Australians who speak. He only want's to listen to "quiet Australians" because they say nothing, don't make his head hurt and don't interrupt him when he's singing in tongues to his god.

If only Scott Morrison would stop telling his god what to do and start listening to what his god's been telling him for the past few years: Millennium Drought, Canberra fires, Black Saturday fires, Alpine fires, big wets and big dries, dead fish, dried up rivers, towns out of water - and all the other weather catastrophes this century including the current ones.

56 comments:

  1. Please, not today. I am sacrificing a fatted calf. At least in NSW there should be lots of coals for the barbecue.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Australia is not even in its summer months and the window of opportunity to carry out prescribed burn offs is shrinking – it will eventually be down to one day in July as long as it’s not raining on that day.
    Meanwhile, no response from the Australian PM when 20 former, retired fire safety and emergency chiefs warned the Australian government in April that climate change was worsening bushfire danger in Australia. Why retired FS&E chiefs? The current, active FS&E chiefs are banned from mentioning "climate change".
    Rather than offering more resources and policy changes, the PM offers his thoughts and prayers to those fighting the fires and those suffering losses from the fires. Unfortunately, that’s sooo to be expected from a politician who believes in miracles.
    Despite the evidence, government ministers and their more extreme supporters in the media are still spreading misinformation and deflecting attention to the “Greenies”, lashing out at latte-sipping city folk, saying that “now is not the time” to discuss the worsening bushfire situation, ...
    With a bit of luck, it will all go away if Australia prays. If that doesn’t work, Australians haven’t been praying hard enough. If praying does work, God is good!

    ReplyDelete
  3. In, one way, I'm glad the PM and his goons don't want to talk about CC, because they have nothing to say of any value.
    We already know they are disingenuous, ignorant and ill-willed from every comment they've already made.
    Of course, their silence will damn them as much as any clueless diversion they do offer.

    The real problem has always been they don't listen.
    Couple that with their increasing acts against transparency, refusing to table documents, defunding FOI, ignoring correspondence on an industrial scale, and we have slipped into a proto-fascist state well before Xmas....

    I will listen if they offer to hire as much available large air tanker capacity as is available...because on current long term weather forecasts these fires will keep burning for at least a month.
    And if they burn for a month we will lose[more]irreplaceable ecological communities and rare species. Humans can move out of harms way and can handle loss. Plants, not so much.

    The Nightcap Oak is under threat.
    The Wollemi Pine may become so.
    The Coachwood-dominated warm temperate rainforest of the Willowie Scrub is being attacked from the east. This is the largest forest of its kind on the planet.
    The Antarctic Beech community in Werrikimbe National Park may be gone, we won't know until experts access aerial data and site visit.
    Antarctic Beech at Nothofagus Mtn is under threat.
    There are many other sites under threat now, and in a monthly forecast context only extra large tanker capacity will make a difference.

    The PM should be made aware of this even if he doesn't understand what it means.
    If nothing is announced within a few days, chalk up another complete failure of leadership from this feckless and stupid regime.
    Perhaps Berejiklian is more tractable, but with the NSW Nationals by her side the room-IQ drops even lower...

    We will look back at this spring and summer and despair, even more so than we are now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, almost a week later, and the PM has as expected largely abandoned the discussion space on this extraordinary event, restricting himself to the cricket, expected praise of the fire services, and the lazy commiseration of 'thoughts and prayers'.
      No meeting with the spurned parties, no attempt even at a lightweight consultation, no acknowledgement of the gravity of the season.

      He walks a fine line. Too much concern and he exposes his tongue-tied party to more opportunities to remind voters that scripted evasion is the Liberal way.
      Today he was mildly challenged on ABC AM, argued from incredulity, told some outright fibs and rebutted some claims that have never been made. Sadly the presenter didn't ask him to source them.

      Delete
    2. Nick, I've worried about the east coast nothofagus associations for about a decade, after observing during my PhD fieldwork how sensitive their edges are to fire behaviour in the schlerophyll forests that abbutt them on the lower-altitude boundaries. Given the rapid changes in fire behaviour over the last 5-10 years I fear that many of these associations are probably now committed to extinction over the coming century or two, regadless of anything that we do in the future.

      I'm also afraid that the Tasmanian Southwest Wilderness World Heritage Area's cool temperate rainforests and alpine conifer associations are similarly committed to extinction as functional ecosystems, again because of the changes in rainfall and temperature profiles, and because of the changes in fire behaviour that will result. The recent work of my colleagues who actually work in fire ecology suggests that these concerns are well-founded...

      And yet there's not a single Liberal or National Party politician anywhere in Australia who's showed the slightest genuine interest in, or concern about, this parlous situation.

      Delete
  4. Karma is a bitch: Venice government office is flooded minutes after officials rejected plan to combat climate change.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/venice-flooding-council-is-flooded-moments-after-rejecting-climate-change-measures/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ha ha... yes, it just keeps happening! Every time! https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Piazza_San_Marco_il_4_novembre_1966.jpg

      Delete
  5. The climate deniers have learned the trick from the US gun lobby

    After every massacre the NRA berate any calls for controls as politicisation of a tragedy

    And we need to wait, yada yada yada

    Two months later "what gun problem"

    You can't win with these arseholes - you have to attack them, no let up

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The "thoughts and prayers" thing is also a NRA favorite. And "quiet Australians" is a retread of "silent majority".

      Delete
    2. Indeed the faux concern is nauseating as it predictable

      Delete
  6. For the avoidence of doubt I mean attack them in the arena of public discourse

    Not physicaly

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The above comment was deleted because it does not comply with the comment policy.

      Refer this article about bushfires and previous warnings: "'What could I have done?' The scientist who predicted the bushfire emergency four decades ago"

      Delete
    2. "But politicians don't dare say that, for fear of being branded climate deniers."

      What special superpowers do you think you have that protect you from just looking like a climate change denier when you say it then?

      Delete
    3. Wow, talk about superpowers: mine appears to be timing.

      Delete
    4. “It seems obvious, but actually we found the correlation was not temperature and fires, but relative humidity and fires. Temperature goes up, it gets drier, and then the fires go up,” says Beer.

      Except that increased temperatures (on average around 0.8degC over the last century) also increase the rate of evaporation. So this effect is only relevant during drought, when winds pass over arid land. And as Andy Pitman advises, there is no direct link between drought and climate change, and the IPCC confirms this. Further, wind direction is a weather even that occurs only when there is a deep low pressure system near Tasmania, and that's not caused by climate change either.

      If there is any correlation between global warming and bushfire risk, it is immeasurably small.

      Delete
    5. Note: The above comment acknowledges that climate change is real, but invokes science to quantify it's effect. If that is climate denial to you folk, then as a scientist I cannot help you.

      Delete
    6. Your comment doesn't make a lot of sense, Anonymous. During drought things are very dry, for sure, so what's there is highly flammable. When there's not a drought and there is more plant matter that dries out there's a lot more fuel to burn so it's also very dangerous.

      As for your correlation conclusion, it flies in the face of evidence. Fires and fire risk conditions have been getting worse in Australia (and elsewhere) as climate changes, so the correlation is there. Scientific research suggests the same:

      https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JAMC-D-17-0167.1


      Wind is probably more important than temperature. You'll have noted that catastrophic/code red fire days are those when the wind is fiercest.

      https://climateextremes.org.au/briefing-note-009-does-global-warming-cause-droughts-drying-or-increased-aridity/

      Delete
    7. Sou, I think we are agreeing on the scientific conclusions in the links. Dryness (aridity, drought)and windiness (causes aridity and fore spread) and these contribute strongly to fire risk. eg the correlation with ENSO variability mentioned in your link. These factors of course are unrelated to climate change.

      There is also a correlation with temperature (and therefore with global warming) as a result of an 0.8degC increase in average global temperatures in the 20th century.

      I don't agree with your comment about good and bad scientists. Science is science, it doesn't matter who is doing the science. That's why science is so powerful.

      Delete
    8. Why "of course"?

      If you've got evidence that the increasing severity of fire risk (and fires) is unrelated to climate change, would you please produce it? Give us some links where the science showing climate change is bringing increasingly hazardous conditions in relation to fire (and drought) is disputed or overturned.

      If you're arguing there's been "weather in the past" then no-one will disagree. Climate change isn't going to bring some sort of undiscovered weather. What it means is what was considered extreme weather in the past is falling into the non-extreme category, and what is known as "extreme" in the future will be more frequent and probably beyond what humans have been accustomed to these last 10,000 years or so.

      Delete
    9. Why "of course"? As determined by the IPCC, there is no increase in droughts, that's not controversial.

      Evidence? Bushfire risk is increasing in correlation with a 0.8 degC increase in temperature, exactly as stated in the links to the peer reviewed science above.

      Delete
    10. Okay, so you can't produce any evidence and just cite the links I provided. That's not really a surprise. You would do well to think more about fires, too. Your comments seem to be all over the place. First you claimed any correlation is "immeasurably small" and now you're saying the risk is increasing "in correlation".

      BTW - re drought. Low confidence is not no confidence (and it referred to global not regional). Increasing drought severity is also not the same as increase in area subject to drought or duration of drought.

      These excerpts are from the IPCC 1.5˚C report:


      It should be noted that the different types of hazards are considered in isolation, but that some regions are projected to be affected by collocated and/or concomitant changes in several types of hazards (for instance sea level rise and heavy precipitation in some regions, possibly leading together to more flooding, or droughts and heatwaves, which can together increase the risk of fire occurrence). Such events, also called compound events, may substantially increase risks in some regions....

      And more:
      The IPCC AR5 assessed that there was low confidence in the sign of drought trends since 1950 at global scale, but that there was likely to be trends in some regions of the world, including increases in drought in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreases in droughts in central North America and north-west Australia (Hartmann et al., 2013; Stocker et al., 2013). The AR5 assessed that there was low confidence in the attribution of global changes in droughts (Bindoff et al., 2013a) and did not provide assessments for the attribution of regional changes in droughts (Bindoff et al., 2013a).

      The recent literature does not suggest a necessary revision of this assessment, except in the Mediterranean region. Recent publications based on observational and modeling evidence suggest that human emissions have substantially increased the probability of drought years in the Mediterranean region (Gudmundsson and Seneviratne, 2016; Gudmundsson et al., 2017). There is also new evidence documenting consistent observed drying trends in the Eastern Mediterranean (Syria; see Box 3.2). Based on this evidence, there is medium confidence that enhanced greenhouse forcing contributed to increased drying in the Mediterranean region (including Southern Europe, Northern Africa and the Near-East) and that this tendency will thus continue to be increased under higher levels of global warming.

      ---

      Might I suggest you spend more time reading science (or catching up if you happened to read some a long time ago).

      Delete
    11. OK, so "immeasurably small", in the sense that we are observing a fire risk increase resulting from an average increase in temperature of 0.08degC decade. At best we can say there is a long term correlation based on modelling (refer to the CSIRO papers cited above), but we cannot directly observe such a tiny trend.

      You citation proves my point that, according to peer reviewed science, there is no increase in drought in Australia as a result of climate change.

      Suggested reading: https://climateextremes.org.au/briefing-note-009-does-global-warming-cause-droughts-drying-or-increased-aridity/

      Delete
    12. That's the first time you've made your "point" and still not cited any of your "peer reviewed science".

      BTW The link you gave is one of the links I provided earlier. From the link:
      Global warming can also lead to increased aridity, and worse droughts, by changing rainfall patterns and the spatial distribution of energy at the surface (i.e., sunlight) – these can combine to significantly change the available water at the surface.

      There's also this article, indicating the current drought is now the worst on record:
      https://www.farmonline.com.au/story/6281386/drought-now-officially-our-worst-on-record/

      Here's another article indicating an expectation (based on science) that drought conditions could worsen in many regions of the world as global warming continues.

      https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2017GL076521

      Delete
    13. "Except that increased temperatures (on average around 0.8degC over the last century) also increase the rate of evaporation. So this effect is only relevant during drought, when winds pass over arid land."

      Bollocks.

      Wind and increased temperature affect soil moisture even when there is sufficient rain that there is no "drought." I've watched own my property's reactive clay for 20 years, and I've spoken to locals who've lived in the area for 50, 60, 70 years, and everyone is in agreement: until about 10 years ago summer cracking was transient and nothing to get too excited about. Now, however, the cracks are almost permanent and the surface of the ground is changing permanently in response to these cracks. When soil/ground moisture is low (which is more often through the year ob]ver the last decade than previously) the cracks are up to three inches wide and 15-18 inches deep. Instead of disappearing in autumn as they used to, they persist right through winter and when it does rain the ground forms undulations with the dips at the crack points - this appears to be a phenomenon that results from the extreme drying near the cracks, and the subsequent non-even redistribution of whatever moisture percolates back in with rain.

      Further, sphagnum moss distribution has dramatically decreased across my land, even where vegetation cover has not significantly changed. Also, lead litter persists and builds up more, because it dries much earlier after winter and therefore the litter doesn't decompose over spring/early summer.

      So don't start making dismissive generalisations. The evidence of my own eyes refutes you, and the behaviour of fire across Australia does the same thing.

      That is all.

      Delete
    14. Bernard J,

      That is merely anecdotal evidence of long-term climate change. Considering weather records of rainfall patterns do not follow your observation, I would suggest you are observing desertification, most likely due to changed land usage (livestock, crops, ...?). That is all.

      Delete
    15. I'm guessing English is not the first language of Anonymous, because what she or he says makes no sense (as usual).

      Just an observation!

      Delete
    16. Thanks Sou, English is my first language. The fact that your observation has led to an error demonstrates my point - that isolated observations such as Bernard's do not necessarily lead to correct conclusions.

      Delete
    17. Anonymous, thanks for letting us know that English is your first language. (It would be great if you could learn how to use it.)

      I've re-read your comment in the light of what you've now said you were trying to say. A couple of points are perplexing.

      BJ said "Wind and increased temperature affect soil moisture even when there is sufficient rain that there is no "drought."" He gave examples of the loss of soil moisture in his region.

      You said the loss of soil moisture was more likely to be caused by a change in land use. Is this another instance of you making sweeping statements which you are unable to support with any evidence?

      What evidence do you have that wind and rainfall and temperature patterns haven't changed where BJ lives?

      What evidence do you have that he and his neighbours have changed their land use in recent years?

      There is a good collection of charts you can refer to in BoM's 2018 State of the Climate summary, showing the change in rainfall and other weather indicators over the country.

      http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/australias-changing-climate.shtml

      I'll add that I have much more confidence in BJ's observations than your hand-waving. He has qualifications and substantial experience in related areas. You've shown a distinct lack of anything other than vague attempts at concern trolling, inconsistency of thought, a refusal to provide evidence for your claims (understandable in your case), and a lack of ability to express your ideas logically or meaningfully.

      Delete
    18. "It would be great if you could learn how to use it."

      Are you always so rude to people?

      It is true that increased temperature combined with wind will cause evaporation (wind dominates temperature significantly), however these are not the major factors causing aridity - long term rainfall trends (eg ENSO cycles) and land use dominate by a large margin. Further there is no general trend in drought and wind in Australia correlating with climate change, as confirmed by the IPCC.

      Bernard has not provided any evidence showing climate anomalies for his location, merely asked us to assume they have happened and that they are responsible for the dryness he observes.

      I cannot provide any counter evidence because I don't know where Bernard lives, and is disingenuous of you to ask me for such evidence, when Bernard has not. I can only state the general trends as confirmed by climate science.

      My knowledge and experience in matters of land management are considerable, and I can assure you I am quite within my area of expertise to suggest that this - in conjunction with the current drought - is far more likely the cause of the desertification Bernard describes.

      https://www.integratesustainability.com.au/2019/06/14/desertification-and-drought-in-australia/

      Delete
    19. Further, I live in NSW, and here is the record of climate change.
      https://climatechange.environment.nsw.gov.au/About-climate-change-in-NSW/Evidence-of-climate-change/Observed-NSW-climate-change

      "Rainfall trends are unclear
      Annual rainfall in NSW has varied between very dry years (such as 1940 and 2002) and very wet years (such as 1950, 1974 and, recently, 2010). The state experienced drier conditions during much of the first half of the last century. Greater variability in annual rainfall occurred during the 1950s to 1990s. The first decade of this century was characterised by below-average rainfall during the Millennium Drought period, which ended with two of the wettest years (2010 and 2011) in Australia on record."

      Delete
    20. Are you always so rude to people?
      No. Only when someone asks for it, and not always then either:)

      It is true that increased temperature combined with wind will cause evaporation (wind dominates temperature significantly), however these are not the major factors causing aridity - long term rainfall trends (eg ENSO cycles) and land use dominate by a large margin. Further there is no general trend in drought and wind in Australia correlating with climate change, as confirmed by the IPCC.

      Just what I wrote previously. In any case, this article is about when it is and isn't okay to talk about climate change and fires, not drought.

      It's not just ENSO time frames, by the way. There are longer term trends in rainfall in different parts of Australia in different seasons - dryer in the southern wet season (autumn to spring) and wetter in parts up north.

      Further there is no general trend in drought and wind in Australia correlating with climate change, as confirmed by the IPCC.

      So you keep saying, yet you've not supported that. It's much more difficult to compare changes in things like drought and wind over time than it is something that can be measured more easily, such as temperature. Changes in precipitation are also trickier than temperature. Nevertheless, people working on the topic suggest "There is some evidence to suggest that climate change is exacerbating drought conditions in parts of Australia, especially in the southwest and southeast."

      Bernard has not provided any evidence showing climate anomalies for his location, merely asked us to assume they have happened and that they are responsible for the dryness he observes.

      Yet you jumped to the conclusion that he's abused the land, when the point he was making was to counter your claims in your first comment where you disagreed with Beer who said he found "the correlation was not temperature and fires, but relative humidity and fires".

      I cannot provide any counter evidence because I don't know where Bernard lives, and is disingenuous of you to ask me for such evidence, when Bernard has not. I can only state the general trends as confirmed by climate science.

      Despite not knowing where he lives, it was you who jumped straight to a claim it was land degradation not a change in weather pattern that caused the soil to dry out for longer - through winter (when BJ said a drought had not been declared). 1/2

      Delete
    21. My knowledge and experience in matters of land management are considerable, and I can assure you I am quite within my area of expertise to suggest that this - in conjunction with the current drought - is far more likely the cause of the desertification Bernard describes.

      Maybe you do have some knowledge and experience in "land management" (though not in clear thinking or logic). I get the feeling you just wanted to start an argument for the sake of it. You'd no evidence and didn't address BJ's point. You've also still not substantiated your initial claim about fire risk and climate change. (If I can understand your poorly expressed comments, you're claiming the increase in fire risk is associated with the global temperature increase but has nothing to do with any change in local weather conditions associated with that global temperature increase. I don't know how that is supposed to work.)

      This article was about fires and talk about climate change. CSIRO reports the fire season is longer, there are more catastrophic fire days, which would be why fires are fiercer. They are destroying areas where fires haven't previously been. Bottom line: thirty years ago was the best time for the government to act on climate change, now is the next best time.

      PS Seasonal rainfall is more important to agriculture than annual rainfall. 2/2

      Delete
    22. Sou: “this article is about when it is and isn't okay to talk about climate change and fires, not drought.”

      My point (again) is that it is naturally occurring drought that is causing the bushfire risk - climate change (0.08degC per decade) is not a significant factor. So it is not really appropriate to talk about bushfires and climate change, because the connection is very weak.

      You seem to be questioning the IPCC documentation or the lack of connection between climate change and drought. I can only say it is very well documented, and you I am sure you already know this.

      You suggest that I have proposed that Bernard had “abused the land”, and that is just deliberately jumping to conclusions, and not what I have said. Land management issues are very complex, and absolutely NOT to be blamed on farmers and land owners. There are massive regulation and historical issues at play. In my experience, people on the land understand the latest science on sustainable land management practices, but recognise there are huge challenges in addressing invasive species, and running livestock in a way that mimics Australian fauna.

      My point is simple: Bushfire risk is correlating with natural climatic conditions and drought mostly unrelated to climate change. The reason why politician don’t want to talk about climate change policy and bushfires is that for numerous reason any potential change in policy will not reduce bushfire risk. No politician wants to be branded with making such a stupid and scientifically unjustified connection - for a potentially serving minister, it is a career ending error.

      Delete
    23. Your point may be simple, it is also wrong.

      You disagree with the scientific experts about bushfires, with nothing to support your disagreement. Just repetition that you don't accept what the experts are finding.

      You claim the IPCC says there's no link between climate change and drought, which is not what this article is about (it's about fires and timing of talk about climate change). In any case, your claim is not borne out as I've shown by quotes from a recent IPCC report in an earlier comment I made.

      You claim that acting to curb climate change won't reduce the risk of fires. That's denier talk. Reducing emissions will reduce the risk of future fires below the risk if emissions continue. Reducing emissions to zero won't stop fires (or drought, or rain, or storms, or heat waves, or floods or any particular weather); but it will most certainly reduce the risk of having much worse fires than the world is seeing these days (and worsening of drought, floods, heat waves, storms and other extremes of weather). Anyone who thinks these past few years have been bad, just wait a few more years!

      Politicians ignore climate change not just at their own peril (if not in the very short term, as recorded in history), but at the peril of all Australians and the world.

      Delete
    24. "My knowledge and experience in matters of land management are considerable, and..."

      When somebody has to rely on claimed expertise they usually don't have it.

      Delete
    25. "I would suggest you are observing desertification, most likely due to changed land usage (livestock, crops, ...?)."

      No, I'm not. I have several dozen acres of cool temperate sclerophyll forest interspersed with a few acres of grassland, and I manage my land to retain the conservation values it's had for at least 50 years. I have at least 10% of the known distribution of a critically endangered plant species so land management is big on my radar.

      Oh, and I've been a scientist for decades, so objective observation is sorta my thing. But the meteorological and oceanographic observations in my corner reflect the same thing - increased temperatures, decreased soil moisture, increased ocean temperatures - and it doesn't take more than subtle changes in a couple of parameters to alter whole ecosystems.

      Forgive me if I completely reject your suggestions that things aren't changing climatologically or ecologically in my corner of the world.

      Oh, and just to underscore the imperative of effective communication and action:

      https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2019

      Delete
    26. "... climate change (0.08degC per decade)..."

      Wrong. The average rate of increase since 1981 is 0.17°C per decade - more than double what you claim.

      Delete
    27. Sou, I agree with you a a qualitative level, however

      "Anyone who thinks these past few years have been bad, just wait a few more years!"

      ... that's an exaggeration. The drought may break, and then bushfire risk will plummet. As I have been at pains to point out temperature alone is not a significant driver of bush fire risk. Australian politicians who are well informed know this, they know that any policy we may pursue has near zero impact on global emissions, let alone local bushfires. Hence their reluctance to discuss.

      Delete
    28. Bernard J wrote: "Forgive me if I completely reject your suggestions that things aren't changing climatologically or ecologically in my corner of the world."

      Where did I say that? I merely pointed out that you have not presented any objective evidence for your claims (you still haven't), and therefore from a scientific perspective you are in no position to conclude that your observations are the result of CO2 emissions. Changes are occurring everywhere in Australia, all the time, and while climate change due to humans has an impact, I know there are many other natural and man-made factors at play. Any policy discussion should acknowledge that.

      Delete
    29. "... interspersed with a few acres of grassland"

      So the land has been cleared in the past? How do you stock the grassland?

      Delete
    30. Anonymous is that boring denier uncle. You know the type. The sort who prompts eye-rolling (and yawns, and groans) when he foists himself on his relatives.

      He'll tell them he "believes" in climate change in an effort to be liked, and then revert to form and spend the next few hours taking "pains to point out" that "it's not happening".

      Delete
    31. Sou is is that crazy Aunty who is certain the world is ending, carries on endlessly about "deniers", and fills everyone with fear that they not ever disagree with her for fear of being the object of her rudeness and sarcasm.

      Delete
    32. "Alarmist" websites have carried stuff about climate change for years. These websites haven't had to change their story.

      Meanwhile, denier websites have to practise frequent amnesia to forget their faux scandals that got debunked, and their memes like "global warming stopped in 1998".

      And Uncle Anon hasn't even noticed.

      Delete
    33. It wouldn't surprise anyone he suffers frequent amnesia, Andy. He doesn't remember what the weather used to be like and how it's changing here and around the world, and doesn't have the wit or will to check. Even in this discussion he doesn't seem to recall that he's shifted his own story a few times. Nor has he acknowledged any of the wrong things he said that have been picked up.

      Being generous, he might not be a deliberate disinformer. He might suffer motivated reasoning and/or confirmation bias and get his "science" from denier blogs. It would fit, since he's prone to logical fallacies (e.g. lots of straw men) and has a tendency to claim he's right just because he says so (no evidence) and all the professionals who do climate science research are wrong.

      Delete
    34. Sou: "He doesn't remember what the weather used to be like"

      It is obviously not possible for humans to directly observe climate change by remembering "what weather used to be like". It is discerned only with careful scientific measurement to establish a signal outside natural variation.

      Delete
    35. Agree. Pity you don't bother and instead jump to "cherry picking" (another thing deniers are known for). The full sentence was, deliberately: "He doesn't remember what the weather used to be like and how it's changing here and around the world, and doesn't have the wit or will to check."

      Science shows weather is changing very quickly as climate change kicks in, and will change more as CO2 keeps increasing. Why don't check observations and why do you reject the science? Why can't you accept that in future the weather will push extremes even more? (You've said that would be an exaggeration and you've also disputed the observations that show weather events, such as the fires this century, are more severe with climate change.)

      Delete
    36. I've decided to shut this down. Enough is enough.

      Anonymous, you can find another site on which to tout your denial.

      Delete
    37. In case people didn't look at the link Anonymous pointed to a while back, at https://climatechange.environment.nsw.gov.au/About-climate-change-in-NSW/Evidence-of-climate-change/Observed-NSW-climate-change

      Note the first page of the full report at that link says the following:

      New South Wales is getting hotter
      2009 was the hottest year on record for NSW. The past ten years, 2000–2009, have been the State’s hottest decade on record. Since the 1970s, every decade has been as warm or warmer than the last.
      These rising temperatures are having significant impacts, including those explained below:

      Greater bushfire danger
      Climate change means many areas in NSW are experiencing an increased number of extreme fire danger days each year.

      More severe droughts
      Higher temperatures exacerbated the recent 13-year drought in south-eastern Australia, depleting soil moisture.

      Happy December!

      Delete
    38. "So the land has been cleared in the past? How do you stock the grassland? "

      I don't "stock" it - grassland doesn't need "stock" to exist. I have about a hundred resident individuals of two types of macropod that give me a nice marsupial lawn. And there are several dozen rabbits too, although they are kept in check by the local raptors.

      Don't try your gotchas on me. I know my land, I know the changes that it's undergoing, and I know that human-caused climate change is profoundly altering the ecological profile of the flora and fauna on my proprty and on the surrounding country.

      Delete
    39. "It is obviously not possible for humans to directly observe climate change by remembering "what weather used to be like"."

      Not so. In my corner of the world winters in the 70s used to be sufficiently cold that mym kids' mum's valley would receive enough snow to prevent the school bus from being able to reach them for several days each winter. These days that same valley never receives any snow at all, and hasn't for well over a decade. My own property used to receive a few inches of snow on a least one day every second winter or so - it hasn't had any for 13 years. And frosts, which used to start in late-autumn and occur dozens of time per year now occur on less than about half a dozen occasions per year and they're never the teeth-setting crunchy-crackle frosts of last century.

      Also, summers are drier. The ground moisture is noticably lower, as I mentioned previously. Thes and the changes listed above don't require scientific techniques to detect them - they can be recorded by simple observation. Just as the disappearance of the Great Barrier Reef doesn't require science to observe it, or raging megafires that leave discernible traces on New Zealand glaciers don't require precision scientific instrumentation to record them.

      Delete
  8. From " this article " which noted '..Australia’s bushfire season has started early this year, with fire chiefs saying the length, extent and intensity of the fires is unprecedented...

    But, according to the BOM 'Bushfire Weather' page, Spring is the season for coastal northern NSW, and Qld.

    "...New South Wales and southern Queensland—spring to mid-summer
    The greatest danger occurs after the dry winter and spring. The worst conditions occur when deep low-pressure systems near Tasmania bring strong, hot and dry, westerly winds to the coastal districts. The end of the fire season is determined by the onset of moister conditions, sometimes the result of a tropical cyclone developing near the Queensland coast."

    http://www.bom.gov.au/weather-services/fire-weather-centre/bushfire-weather/index.shtml

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, spring is the danger period in that area.
      Fires on the north coast and tablelands started in August, and there were bad fires around the Granite Belt in summer, typically the wetter season.
      So there has been a lot more fire over the course of the year, and the typical fire season did start early.
      I know, I live up there. There was very little time for winter burn-offs because conditions were more often dangerous.
      And the fire chiefs did say Australia, not just one region.
      So I struggle to see what point you are trying to make...nothing said by the fire chiefs is inconsistent with regional characters.

      Delete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. (Deleted my post, now trying again)

    There can be no good time for the LNP to discuss climate change implications for drought and fire; that would be an admission that there are implications. It would also risk bringing to light how dangerously irresponsible they have been to toss all the expert advice they've been getting on climate change and bushfires in the bin without reading them.

    To be fair, Mr Morrison has a lot on his plate - making protesting illegal and getting rid of environmental requirements for approvals in order to fast track new coal mines and gas fields for example, are no easy matter; there are all those people who are not extremist protesters, far outnumbering them who are refusing to be quiet Australians.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Morrison can easily seen to be the extremist, given what we have known for a while.
      It's typical of the Luntzian methods of the world's Tory parties to accuse their target of doing what they are in fact doing, of being what the evidence shows the Tories in fact are.
      Morrison rejects scientific orthodoxy on change and risks, and while the hyperconsumption economy might have been [risky] orthodoxy two decades ago, it is now without a doubt fundamentally ecocidal.
      So it's no surprise that Morrison, as a coal industry 'fixer' and protector, a cuckoo in the nest of democracy, will attempt to criminalise protest and weaken environmental scrutiny in an attempt to delay the stranding of his masters assets..
      An increasingly authoritarian response will be attempted, and how far it progresses will depend on the passivity and disengagement of the Australian electorate, and a bit of luck with a gentle season or two.
      The weather will be increasingly against him...but it's going to be the same for all.

      Delete

Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.