Australia is drying out thanks to our...

Australia is drying out thanks to our emissions

There are 153 comments on the New Scientist story from Jul 13, 2014, titled Australia is drying out thanks to our emissions. In it, New Scientist reports that:

Australia is drying out, and it's largely our fault. The south-west of the country can expect to see average annual rainfall drop by 40 per cent compared with the mid-20th century, and a new model suggests that the main cause is human greenhouse gas emissions.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at New Scientist.

SpaceBlues

United States

#105 Jul 17, 2014
Professor Richard Betts, chair in Climate Impacts at the College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, UK

The thing that bugs me most about the way climate change is talked about in the media is journalists citing scientific papers without providing a link to the original paper.
Readers often want to get more details or simply check sources, but this is very difficult (or sometimes impossible) if the source is not given. I've raised this a few times, and get lame excuses like 'readers get frustrated when the journals are paywalled' but that's not good enough. Media should provide sources – end of.
SpaceBlues

United States

#106 Jul 17, 2014
Professor Steven Sherwood, director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, Sydney


Where to start?

These are things I don’t see (or don’t see enough).

First is still that, even though it is clear greenhouse gas emissions raise the temperature of the Earth, we’ve known this for 50+ years and no reputable atmospheric scientist in the world disputes this, most people think scientists disagree. They’ve been misled by the media, and I’ve been told repeatedly by reporters in the US and Australia that this is due to pressure from management.

Second is the fact that carbon dioxide emissions are effectively irreversible and will stay in the climate system for hundreds of generations is seldom noted. If we decide later that this was a huge mistake there is no going back (practically speaking).

On the political side, I wish the media would note the obvious parallels of the carbon debate with past ones over restricting pollutants (mercury, lead, asbestos, CFCs), where claims that restrictions would be economically catastrophic never came true.

These are things I do see that bug me.

One would be phrases like “action on climate change”. We should be talking about “action on carbon dioxide”— and climate is only one reason (albeit the biggest) that too much of it is dangerous. Nothing we do with respect to any other influence on climate will prevent global warming if CO2 keeps climbing.
SpaceBlues

United States

#107 Jul 17, 2014
Professor Stefan Rahmstorf, head of Earth System Analysis, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany


One of the phrases that makes me cringe is when I read in the media that a particular extreme weather event "is no evidence for climate change". This is so bad it's not even wrong, but it is quite misleading.

Climate change is a measured fact seen in rising temperatures, vanishing ice, rising sea levels etc.- it needs no further evidence. And a single extreme event cannot possibly provide such evidence, because climate change increases the number of certain extremes. Some, like heat waves, have already increased massively thanks to global warming.
SpaceBlues

United States

#108 Jul 17, 2014
Professor Roger Jones, research fellow at the Centre for Strategic and Economic Studies at Victoria University, Melbourne


Who am I?

I can be sued for calling a public individual fraudulent but not a whole scientific community or organisation – because climate scientists and the IPCC are fraudulent.

I can publish proven lies in my newspaper day after day with no penalty.

I can buy disaffected scientists to deny sound science with a plane fare to a bogus conference and a little publicity.

I can anonymously threaten researchers online, especially the female ones.

If anyone threatens me with facts, I can call them an antidemocratic, anti-jobs, McCarthyist, communist, anti-freedom, pagan environmentalist.

Everyone says there is no consensus.

I deny everything.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#109 Jul 17, 2014
"It's a very sad day because it was working, this carbon price," said Australian Conservation Foundation CEO Kelly O'Shanassy. "Our government has failed Australians and they need to go and look their kids and their grandkids in the eye and tell them why — why — they are unwinding laws that will protect people in this country from climate change."

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#110 Jul 17, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Please explain and point out exactly.

Your dogma makes you blind to the truth. You are speculating that millions comprising of scientists, people in organizations, universities, governments, and companies, working men and women, teachers, religious leaders, and so on are believers of something that you are in opposition to.

Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation:

http://skepticalscience.com/
The science behind global warming isn't the issue for the most part. Observations alone doesn't cut it though. Interpreting the data is where we break from science. I might be willing to change but why? First I would need to be convinced that human activity was the cause not just that it is likely the cause, second I would need to be convinced that by changing it would render the desired effect and I would also need to know that my personal changes wasn't a case of the cure being worse than the disease. What I do know from the science is that climate change happens naturally and given that fact it would be wise to be an adaptive species.
Monroe

Scott Depot, WV

#111 Jul 17, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Tell us.
I will tell "them". This post is in support of my previous posts as information for those who still have the ability to view warming rationally.

I wrote the IPCC report said warming was slow for a decade but I remembered incorrectly.

The IPCC report refers to a 15 year period, not 10, 1998 through 2012 - warming 0.05 (plus or minus 0.1 degree, which means the IPCC actually allows for the possibility of cooling)

See below the cut/paste from Summary For Policymakers B.1 in part:

In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends.

As one example, the rate of warming
over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15]°C per decade), which begins with a
strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14]°C per decade).
----------

The IPCC MUST acknowledge the lack of warming but explains it away lightly, 15 years (now 17) is too short a period to make a "trend".

It seems unjustified, to me at least, to call AGW settled science, or to be so highly certain that disaster looms. Too much is not explained or understood.

For the developed Western nations to hobble their economies in the name of averting AGW to no effect since the rest of the world continues increasing output of CO2 would be stupid in the extreme.
SpaceBlues

Hockley, TX

#112 Jul 17, 2014
Curiosityforever wrote:
<quoted text>
The science behind global warming isn't the issue for the most part. Observations alone doesn't cut it though. Interpreting the data is where we break from science. I might be willing to change but why? First I would need to be convinced that human activity was the cause not just that it is likely the cause, second I would need to be convinced that by changing it would render the desired effect and I would also need to know that my personal changes wasn't a case of the cure being worse than the disease. What I do know from the science is that climate change happens naturally and given that fact it would be wise to be an adaptive species.
Nonsense.

Science is not carried out as an opinion. If you have science-worthy material, publish it in proper journals.

Of course, you are sans science and mathematics.

Put your hand on your heart.. what happens to 110 million tons of man-made CO2 released daily into our breathing atmosphere! Global climate change is only the beginning.

Washington (AFP)- The world is getting warmer, as greenhouse gases reach historic highs and Arctic sea ice melts, making 2013 one of the hottest years on record, international scientists said Thursday.

The annual State of the Climate report 2013 is a review of scientific data and weather events over the past year, compiled by 425 scientists from 57 countries.
SpaceBlues

Hockley, TX

#113 Jul 17, 2014
As
Monroe wrote:
<quoted text>
I will tell "them". This post is in support of my previous posts as information for those who still have the ability to view warming rationally.
I wrote the IPCC report said warming was slow for a decade but I remembered incorrectly.
The IPCC report refers to a 15 year period, not 10, 1998 through 2012 - warming 0.05 (plus or minus 0.1 degree, which means the IPCC actually allows for the possibility of cooling)
See below the cut/paste from Summary For Policymakers B.1 in part:
In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends.
As one example, the rate of warming
over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15]°C per decade), which begins with a
strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14]°C per decade).
----------
The IPCC MUST acknowledge the lack of warming but explains it away lightly, 15 years (now 17) is too short a period to make a "trend".
It seems unjustified, to me at least, to call AGW settled science, or to be so highly certain that disaster looms. Too much is not explained or understood.
For the developed Western nations to hobble their economies in the name of averting AGW to no effect since the rest of the world continues increasing output of CO2 would be stupid in the extreme.
As you admit you are incorrect.. Also, irrational, I add.

You are reminded of the culprit to carry on. Afterall, those who are responsible mostly are eager to finish life on Earth. World wars were only partial to date.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming#m...

You defend madness out of control, shamefully.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#114 Jul 17, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Nonsense.

Science is not carried out as an opinion. If you have science-worthy material, publish it in proper journals.

Of course, you are sans science and mathematics.

Put your hand on your heart.. what happens to 110 million tons of man-made CO2 released daily into our breathing atmosphere! Global climate change is only the beginning.

Washington (AFP)- The world is getting warmer, as greenhouse gases reach historic highs and Arctic sea ice melts, making 2013 one of the hottest years on record, international scientists said Thursday.

The annual State of the Climate report 2013 is a review of scientific data and weather events over the past year, compiled by 425 scientists from 57 countries.
Your Dogmatic approach isn't helpful to gaining support.
SpaceBlues

Hockley, TX

#115 Jul 17, 2014
Curiosityforever wrote:
<quoted text>
Your Dogmatic approach isn't helpful to gaining support.
Thanks for helping show how deniers behave with lies, misrepresentations, and attacks.

People are not stupid.
SpaceBlues

Hockley, TX

#116 Jul 17, 2014
Look up dogma, dogmatic.
Deniers call science-based posts "driven by dogma" or dogmatic, LOL.

Just because they can't discuss science due their ignorance. Why then do they err in asuming they are qualified in science denial? Arrogance!

Next they would try to perform open heart surgery.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#118 Jul 17, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks for helping show how deniers behave with lies, misrepresentations, and attacks.

People are not stupid.
I'm not denying anything. What I'm saying is scientist have proven that the climate will and does change with or without humans and we should be adaptive.
litesong

Everett, WA

#119 Jul 17, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
... 110 million tons of man-made CO2 released daily into our breathing atmosphere!
Thought your earlier estimate of 90 million tons of man-made CO2 per day was a bit low.
SpaceBlues

Hockley, TX

#120 Jul 17, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Thought your earlier estimate of 90 million tons of man-made CO2 per day was a bit low.
Thanks, litesong.

That number was good for a while then I had to update since 400ppm was reached. I posted about the change about a month ago.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#121 Jul 17, 2014
Makes me want to roll coal
Monroe

Scott Depot, WV

#122 Jul 17, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
As<quoted text>As you admit you are incorrect.. Also, irrational, I add.
You are reminded of the culprit to carry on. Afterall, those who are responsible mostly are eager to finish life on Earth. World wars were only partial to date.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming#m...
You defend madness out of control, shamefully.
SpaceBlues is loosing it.

He can respond only with gibberish and a completely irrelevant Wikipedia page.(Somebody tell him Wikipedia is not a scientific journal)
Has anyone else notice that he has not responded to any facts or statements with anything but insults.

Still, elsewhere he says "deniers" respond only with insults etc.

For him, inconvenient reports from the IPCC don't exist.

The mind has defense mechanisms to protect itself from things it cannot bear.

So difficult facts do not exist and it is "the other" that can respond only with insults!

No thought, no discussion, just dogma.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#124 Jul 18, 2014
Monroe wrote:
<quoted text>
SpaceBlues is loosing it.
He can respond only with gibberish and a completely irrelevant Wikipedia page.(Somebody tell him Wikipedia is not a scientific journal)
Has anyone else notice that he has not responded to any facts or statements with anything but insults.
Still, elsewhere he says "deniers" respond only with insults etc.
For him, inconvenient reports from the IPCC don't exist.
The mind has defense mechanisms to protect itself from things it cannot bear.
So difficult facts do not exist and it is "the other" that can respond only with insults!
No thought, no discussion, just dogma.
What have you got? You are delusional.

Go away for an education.
Monroe

Scott Depot, WV

#127 Jul 18, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>What have you got? You are delusional.
Go away for an education.


Foolish boy!

You can't respond to the math in the latest IPCC report? Of course you can't . You don't like the numbers so, for you, they don't exist. For SpaceBlues, the IPCC report is delusional, like any thing else which does not fit his preconceived notions.

SpaceBlues can cut and paste, he can write the tenants of his religion, but he can't really think.
SpaceBlues

Tomball, TX

#128 Jul 18, 2014
Monroe wrote:
<quoted text>
Foolish boy!
You can't respond to the math in the latest IPCC report? Of course you can't . You don't like the numbers so, for you, they don't exist. For SpaceBlues, the IPCC report is delusional, like any thing else which does not fit his preconceived notions.
SpaceBlues can cut and paste, he can write the tenants of his religion, but he can't really think.
Another deranged denier babbling nonsense.

The math in the latest IPCC report? You without mathematics think there's a question like that. You are delusional.

Go away to perform an open heart surgery, LOL.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weather Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Flash flood advisory for Northeast El Paso 16 hr DC Dave 4
News Get furnace checked or face a fine (Nov '14) 20 hr silly rabbit 114
News They didna t expect theya d have to salvage pie... Tue grovenanny 1
News Michelle Grossman - About NBC 10 News Story - W... (Mar '08) Tue Jim Mac 787
News Severe weather warnings issued in Borderland Tue huey goins 3
News 'Unprecedented' flooding slams Gulf Coast Tue Eternal truth 10
News Will the great flood sink Baton Rouge or inspir... Mon Billy Joe 1
More from around the web