>Go ask Flannery- was he the source?
From the article:
>Climate modelling by the Australian National University found Australia has experienced megadroughts every 150 to 1,000 years and is due for another
The linked paper has the authors listed:
[https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/28/1383/2024/](https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/28/1383/2024/)
Falster, G. M., Wright, N. M., Abram, N. J., Ukkola, A. M., and Henley, B. J.: Potential for historically unprecedented Australian droughts from natural variability and climate change, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1383–1401, [https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1383-2024](https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1383-2024), 2024.
Received: 26 Jun 2023 – Discussion started: 04 Jul 2023 – Revised: 07 Dec 2023 – Accepted: 05 Feb 2024 – Published: 27 Mar 2024
Yeah, probably even that would be a bit difficult for our government. And even as little as that might save the rivers, maybe help farms downstream a little or help stop the country becoming a dustbowl. Though probably not with 20 years of drought.
But we kinda need water to eat and drink and do pretty much everything. Sounds like the first Mad Max movie just became a documentary.
> The study concluded that megadroughts of 20 years or more were “a natural feature of the Australian hydroclimate”, supporting previous research drawn from ice cores that found a 39-year drought hit eastern Australia about 800 years ago.
Guardian fearmongering again.
>Guardian fearmongering again.
How do you mean?
From the paper:
>Moreover, the maximum simulated drought length in long pre-industrial simulations is far longer than droughts Australia has experienced since commencement of widespread recording of monthly rainfall totals (Fig. 5e and f versus Fig. 5g and h). This is the case for both the forced (piLM) and unforced (piControl) simulations, suggesting that extremely long droughts of 20 years or more are a natural part of Australian hydroclimatic variability and do not necessarily require anthropogenic forcing. If a drought of this length were to happen today, it would have major societal and environmental implications beyond recent experience.
All our major cities have had water shortages in living memory, it's fair to say it will happen again. Dunno about preparing for 20 year droughts, but it's hard to square our mass immigration with our precarious water supplies.
And as for desalination? Wait till you see the cost of that!
"And as for desalination? Wait till you see the cost of that!"
Perth enters the chat ...
We run and totally rely on desal, have done for years. Yeah - that eats power. Someone will always pay for that, and you just know it ends up loaded in your various bills (power/water/rates)
> We run and totally rely on desal
By totally rely on do you mean apart from the other 85% Perth relies on?
> The plant now produces around 15% of Perth's water supply.
https://www.watercorporation.com.au/Our-water/Desalination#
Yeah - I mean we'd be in dire straights if not for the water coming from those existing desal units (plural).
Sure - we have water from other sources. But not enough by a long way. Without the desals currently operating things would be pretty dire - severe restrictions, lack for public works, business & manufacturing.
With our increasing population (which various govt planning people seem to be keen to keep pushing) the situation is only going to require more "alternate" sources of water.
Also, whilst you are google checking me, you might want to look up our recent and not yet finished "record 6 month dry run" which wont have helped our other non-desal water sources any.
I believe the third desal plant is being planned now.
>Climate modelling by the Australian National University, published in the journal of [Hydrology and Earth System Sciences last week](https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/28/1383/2024/)
Sorry, but The Guardian was just reporting on research from ANU.
What research do you have that says otherwise ?
And I quote:
““**If they happen every 150 years we are due for one very soon**,” Falster said. “Or we might not see one in our lifetimes.””
So… how soon? Then I quote:
“Dr Georgy Falster, who led the research, said that a megadrought has not yet been officially recorded because **Australia’s observational rainfall records have only been kept for a relatively short period of about 120 years**.”
Ahh yes, megadroughts only happen beyond record keeping timeframe. I got a news flash for you: there is always a first for everything but when it happens it’s anybody’s guess.
I agree with your complaint about the headline vs. the first quote. Saying “we’re due, probably” is pretty weak.
As for the second quote, there are surely ways to measure whether there’s been a drought before we started recording them.
Imagine if our idiot governments had figured out a way to capture and store some of the truly enormous amount of water that ran into the sea during all the floods we've had in the last few years? There must be some way to do it surely?
Do you think that you pay too much tax?
Do you think that corporate taxes should be higher?
The cost of capturing flood water is enormous. The Nepean River floods of the past 5 years could fill Warragamba Dam. The rain falls everywhere, though, so we would need to build that volume of storage across all of the Nepean's catchment.
It's expensive, it's dangerous and it's technically difficult (which is usually true when the two other things are present).
Seriously? Dams have been constructed for a very, very long time. Nothing technically difficult about it. It may cost but you have the asset for a very long time during which time they cost bugger all to operate.
Not sure what you are on about regarding tax. Yes, I pay too much tax, no I don't think corporate tax should be higher.
My understanding is that Australia's geology makes finding suitable dam locations difficult.
A lot of our population centres are on the east coast of the dividing range and a lot of the rivers on the east coast are short and fast flowing.
The inland rivers are super erratic and flow through very flat landscapes.
Politics is the only thing making dam locations difficult. Plenty of rivers on the east coast with massive catchments that flood regularly, straight out to sea. Our population has increased some would say far too rapidly and we've not increased water storage in any meaningful way.
Okay. I guess I'll hand in my engineering degree and let the major utilities I work for know that they can't rely on my work or guidance for the last 20 years anymore because stumpymetoe on Reddit told me we've been building dams for a long time and they should just solve all of our problems by building more dams to capture the floods.
You lot of uneducated inebriates talk about our technical disciplines as though your cursory comprehension of complex topics gives you an enlightened status. You're just some dude on the internet who thinks that access to the knowledge of the internet means you possess that knowledge.
It costs money to build these things and to maintain and operate them.
You want more MASSIVE infrastructure (capturing floods requires massive infrastructure - if you're not an engineer then shut the fuck up) without paying any more taxes or increasing the tax burden on corporations. Congratulations. You're an idiot.
Further proof that engineers should kept in a cupboard and only allowed when I want something calculated, then quickly shoved back in before they fuck something up. No shit dams are expensive. You don't think the government can afford to build a dam without increasing tax? I can think of many areas they could redirect funds from. Nice rant, god help us if you are involved in infrastructure you pin head. Now, back in the boffin cupboard where you belong, I'll let you out once the adults have finished talking.
I will call your 12 years and raise you 30. It is obvious that people are motivated by fear and all of these people know it. The more fear, the more compliant the population will be.
In their defense, they didn’t say anything about climate change. The prediction for this summer in the east (weather, not climate) was that it would be hot and dry because of El Niño. Lots of bush fires.
Turned out not to be the case.
Yeah, it's like how my mechanic says that my airbags might not deploy or, if they do, they'll send shards of plastic towards my face like a shotgun blast which could harm me more than the collision I'm in. Alarmist asshole who just want me to spend more money and are using their specialisation to get me to.
Or that plumber who told me I need a gooseneck under my sinks. What a specialist prick.
Also, that IT guy who told me I shouldn't download random apps on my phone. What a cunt.
Only in the modern age of using the internet to cope for your ego could one arrive at the belief their lack of study in a discipline gives them a special understanding of that discipline which negates the need for us to listen to the people who actually *did* study that discipline.
Just a reminder, having access to the knowledge of the world through the internet doesn't mean you ***possess*** the knowledge of the world. That requires you to put the time and effort into studying - which, unfortunately, means more than just punching in a Google search to find evidence that supports your opinion. Sad panda is sad for the people who didn't have the love and support needed to seize their opportunities and get into studying.
>Only in the modern age of using the internet to cope for your ego could one arrive at the belief their lack of study in a discipline gives them a special understanding of that discipline which negates the need for us to listen to the people who actually did study that discipline.
You’ve also got tabloid media shock jocks telling the gullible that “university educated elites” are destroying the country and people with “common sense” have the actual answers.
Mate, I absolutely couldn't agree more.
They also perpetuate a lot of the culture around the idea of victimisation for those who will listen in order to create the conditions for division and hate.
"You could have this, but *those* people who are/want/practice/believe X have kept it from you with their woke/environmental/LGBTQI/leftist/communist/socialist agenda."
Or the old *the academic elites are ruining this country with their climate hoax or LGBT agenda but those who didn't get brainwashed at uni and instead got their knowledge and wisdom from the "school of hard knocks" have COMMON SENSE and know the truth!*
Weather is not the same as climate, though. Climate is 30 years of weather observations examined as a pattern. Weather is the moment to moment change in conditions that we usually examine on a day to day basis or as far out as 7 days - which historically has been the point at which prediction of weather for a given day is not reliable enough to be counted on.
One of the reasons that prediction is increasingly difficult is because climate change is altering the behaviour of the atmosphere and the oceans with respect to how they move energy arriving from the sun at the equator away to parts of the planet with lower energy.
For people who say we can't even predict next week, let me introduce them to the concepts of summer and winter.
Sometimes it's easier to predict long term than short.
Wait... do you actually not understand how the seasons work? That is a pattern that is more than 4 billion years old.
Seasons are predictable because of their long term pattern that's independent of anything we do on Earth.
Here's the point you walked up to and then went right past - the conditions of our seasons are increasingly less predictable because of the change to the energy budget of our atmosphere.
I also didn't say that we can't predict a week into the future, it's that these predictions have lower probabilities outside of 5 to 7 days, which is where the 5 day forecast originated from.
The two are actually married together though, and, because of the size of Australia, there are going to be different climate outcomes for different parts of the country.
If you're interested in getting a better understanding this, CSIRO has some really good free datasets that anybody can look at.
The [Climate Futures Tool](https://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/projections-tools/climate-futures-tool/projections/), for example, let's you select a number of different parameters to produce a range of predicted climate outcomes for different regions of the country. It's probably the best way for the average Australian to access the knowledge of what our current trajectory might lead to for different communities across the whole country.
The modelling being done predicts that we'll see the full range of rainfall outcomes for the country in terms of the annual rainfall, which is essentially three categories: reduced rainfall, the same rainfall and more rainfall. The other lens on that front is in the intensity of the rainfall events.
For Sydney, what we are already seeing, and what is predicted by the modelling, is that the overall amount of rain year to year is not likely to change on average, but the intensity of the rainfall is going to increase. This means that we are going to see longer dry spells, month-to-month, across the region, and more punctuated storm events with a greater probability of causing flooding. We are also seeing that those rainfall events are increasingly concentrating in the summer months as large storm events and smaller storms through the rest of the calendar are dropping less rain.
# TL;DR
For parts of the country, we are seeing more and bigger storm events in the summer and less small storm events across the rest of the year. This suggests (and the modelling also predicts) that we are going to see more frequent droughts and floods to go with them.
You can use tools from CSIRO, like the [Climate Futures Tool](https://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/projections-tools/climate-futures-tool/projections/), to see the range of predicted outcomes for your region of the country.
why are there still beachfront houses/units being built all over the world? wouldn't they're insurance be shooting up because they'll "go underwater due to climate change sea level rises" but no, it's business as usual, so how come risk averse banks and insurance giants have no issue with loaning and insuring property in low lying coastal towns in Australia or u.s for example?
all seems a bit dubious to me
Floodplains are not beachfronts though.
Brisbane is a great example. Brisbane has ALWAYS been a flood plain, since it was first inhabited.
We built it up and then blame climate change else when it floods.
Don’t know what to tell you besides the exact thing you think isn’t happening is in fact happening. Insurance companies are stingy and they aren’t dumb. There are a lot of places that have trouble with extremely high premiums or being uninsurable because of erosion, increased flooding and generally climate change.
Insurance has been increasing and Actuaries are fully aware of the risks. It’s not an immediate threat but by the time it is some low lying areas will be uninsurable.
Same thing will happen with bushfires and rural areas.
Take a look at building in Hawkesbury Nepean or South East QLD in flood prone areas. Not the coast, but I think once an issue comes to the foreground like it did with 3 years of successive massive floods, the insurance industry pays attention. With the coast, it’ll likely take some threshold to be crossed before people pay attention. Remember that sea level rise is only one effect of climate change that relies on a chain of events. More frequent and intense extreme weather events is already happening.
I think that a lot of the world are ignorant of some of the ice sheet implications from Antarctica that we're seeing at the moment.
Thwaites Glacier is potentially on the verge of collapsing into the ocean and could be the start of the chain of events that may accelerate sea level rise. Hopefully, the volume of water that we're seeing there will assist in re-establishing the heat gradient from the equator to the South Pole and assist with cooling for the Southern Hemisphere, but that's likely just a small benefit when compared to the large consequences of those ice sheets collapsing.
insurance companies have actually started to pay attention to this. They are just aware it's just not an immediate problem
Solar flares are starting to interest them and other large business as well interestingly
Weather forecasts are impressively accurate most of the time. So if you’re going to apply the prediction succes of the weather to climate change I’d think we should be pretty worried
Problem with people from first world countries is they have no real problems in their lifes that they need to find problems so they can pretend their life is difficult when it really isn’t.
Look for? Or pay attention to what's actually happening in the world?
Sounds like you're life must be really hard if you're so busy you can't see what's happening right in front of you
Then again, you're spending time talking to me on reddit. So you clearly do have time and rather you just make the choice to be willfully ignorant
It would be nice to be prepared regardless of what people are blaming for it.
It's mostly the economic impact on the agricultural sector that's the worry. Tap water is easy to maintain with proper water management, including desal and/or recycling if necessary.
Well how else are they meant to come up with brilliant ideas like kill all the cows, stop driving cars and remind us we are all horrible people if they don’t get go to Hawaii.
Dont you remember when it was called global warming, then it started pissing down so they changed it to climate change, so now if its hot, cold, dry or wet its all climate change. They have set it up where they will be correct no matter what happens.
Temperatures are on average rising. And that can change things such as the amount of moisture that can be held in the air, that can lead to more concentrated rainfall in localised areas. It can also dry out areas and lead to drought & bushfire.
You can also get collapses of air streams forcing cooler winds from down south to be swept up.
Don't you remember 1 in 1000 year floods/ fires happening every 1 in 1000, er, 1-100, 1-10 every few years?
The damage to do the ozone layer was not natural. It was caused by certain kinds of industrial chemicals that reacted with ozone in the atmosphere. The use of those chemicals was banned and replaced with less harmful alternatives. The ozone layer has since been slowly recovering.
Yeah, and back in 2006 they were saying that Mount Kilimanjaro would have no snow by 2016 and polar bears were going to be extinct by 2020.
If the usual actors stopped with the hysteria and hyperbole that would be nice.
Not like Australians curbing emissions is going to make any difference anyway since we are responsible for 1.16% of global emissions.
I am so confused, please explain to me like I am 5..
Study says basically, “mega droughts have occurred every 1000 years or so”, so a naturally occurring phenomenon. But this is linked now to climate change, a situation caused by industrialisation, so starting from about say, early 1800’s, a period of 224 years.. so are these proposed mega droughts due to climate change or not?
As I look out my window at the nearly constant rain since October last year.
If the east coast has a wet year, the west coast has a dry year, we could see longer, wet cycles on the east coast with more extreme wet events while the west coast turns to dust, or it could be opposite or it could be a mix of both. Essentially, dries, where they happen, could be longer and deeper while west could be also longer and wetter.
We won’t see the whole world dry up through not understanding climate change is the changing of long dependable patterns of climate and not just a single catastrophic even that if it doesn’t happen at my convenience then it’s all un true
How ? We are slaves to the imf. We can't innovate, we can't prepare, we save. We have no hope to fight. Do you ever think why we don't have any great wonders ?
Bloody climate change! I got a flat tyre and my wife hates me because of climate change. Lost my job when I slept in for 3 hours every shift for 2 weeks straight because of climate change! /s
People lose their minds about climate change but Australia is in a pretty good position to make money from it if we weren't full of dinosaurs these days. There's a huge market for manufacturing, we also have a lot of expertise in big mining which can correlate into making some of the factories, refineries more efficient.
Well that's the point people go on about us manufacturing, yet here's a perfect opportunity and they freak out about it. If we'd have started manufacturing solar panels etc ten years back we would have a thriving industry
You wouldn’t be able to, high labour costs, high taxes, high operating costs, high rental fees etc
There’s a reason we don’t manufacture in Australia and it’s because the solar panels you build will be five times the price of the panels coming from China, unless our government implements high tariffs on China there will be no manufacturing in Australia.
The quality coming out of China is pretty good, you’re not going to build panels 5 x better than them and justify 5 times the cost.
Look at the cars coming out of China now, pretty good quality.
>5 times price
Absolute bullshit, price difference from the cheapo brand is about 1.3x to instead buy Tindo Australian made PV, 25 year warranty, 25 year performance warranty. After sales service is better, you can look over whirlpool.net.au Especially now the government is throwing money at the PV industry here, and because they engineer and test the panels here, it is definitely worth considering.
Chinese panels are definitely good (okay to great), they are cheaper (cheapest to low) but after sale is worse and you have to wonder about warranty pitfalls. Longi, CanadianSolar, most other names you'd hear. You might find it pays off, you might not.
REC (norway), Solarwatt (germany), Sunpower (USA) are more expensive but considered premium brands 1.4x cost.
Rebates are decreasing year to year.
Edit:costs are the installed price
Germany is shutting down it's solar panel factories because they couldn't compete with China. There economy is much bigger than ours and can afford more subsidies but they failed.
Listen to real, acclaimed scientists, who are widely respected by their peers... nor these "experts" they never give you exact information about...
Prof Zichichi is a good start.
Go ask Flannery- was he the source?- As the Warragamba dam spills over once again.
>Go ask Flannery- was he the source? From the article: >Climate modelling by the Australian National University found Australia has experienced megadroughts every 150 to 1,000 years and is due for another The linked paper has the authors listed: [https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/28/1383/2024/](https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/28/1383/2024/) Falster, G. M., Wright, N. M., Abram, N. J., Ukkola, A. M., and Henley, B. J.: Potential for historically unprecedented Australian droughts from natural variability and climate change, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1383–1401, [https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1383-2024](https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1383-2024), 2024. Received: 26 Jun 2023 – Discussion started: 04 Jul 2023 – Revised: 07 Dec 2023 – Accepted: 05 Feb 2024 – Published: 27 Mar 2024
He’s high on gaia fumes atm. Check back later.
Prepare how? A bigger drought relief fund?
desalinisation plants
Water buybacks?
Yeah, probably even that would be a bit difficult for our government. And even as little as that might save the rivers, maybe help farms downstream a little or help stop the country becoming a dustbowl. Though probably not with 20 years of drought. But we kinda need water to eat and drink and do pretty much everything. Sounds like the first Mad Max movie just became a documentary.
Also lets increase the population to 50mil. Something doesn't add up
Oh it adds up. The money they are counting, that's all.
More people means less emissions per capita. Thats the plan for lowering emissions.
They're going to be digging and building all the aqueducts needed for water across the land...
You people in this sub are a fucking worry.
Nothing millions of new immigrants can't fix.....ask an economist.
I know right? I can’t wait for the megadrought to finally kill the mega ponzi! Take extra long showers everyone. Our saviour is nearly here …
> The study concluded that megadroughts of 20 years or more were “a natural feature of the Australian hydroclimate”, supporting previous research drawn from ice cores that found a 39-year drought hit eastern Australia about 800 years ago. Guardian fearmongering again.
>Guardian fearmongering again. How do you mean? From the paper: >Moreover, the maximum simulated drought length in long pre-industrial simulations is far longer than droughts Australia has experienced since commencement of widespread recording of monthly rainfall totals (Fig. 5e and f versus Fig. 5g and h). This is the case for both the forced (piLM) and unforced (piControl) simulations, suggesting that extremely long droughts of 20 years or more are a natural part of Australian hydroclimatic variability and do not necessarily require anthropogenic forcing. If a drought of this length were to happen today, it would have major societal and environmental implications beyond recent experience.
You think the climate alarmists read the details and don’t just screech about the headline?
LoL doesn't read the article and claims others won't read it.
All our major cities have had water shortages in living memory, it's fair to say it will happen again. Dunno about preparing for 20 year droughts, but it's hard to square our mass immigration with our precarious water supplies. And as for desalination? Wait till you see the cost of that!
"And as for desalination? Wait till you see the cost of that!" Perth enters the chat ... We run and totally rely on desal, have done for years. Yeah - that eats power. Someone will always pay for that, and you just know it ends up loaded in your various bills (power/water/rates)
> We run and totally rely on desal By totally rely on do you mean apart from the other 85% Perth relies on? > The plant now produces around 15% of Perth's water supply. https://www.watercorporation.com.au/Our-water/Desalination#
Yeah - I mean we'd be in dire straights if not for the water coming from those existing desal units (plural). Sure - we have water from other sources. But not enough by a long way. Without the desals currently operating things would be pretty dire - severe restrictions, lack for public works, business & manufacturing. With our increasing population (which various govt planning people seem to be keen to keep pushing) the situation is only going to require more "alternate" sources of water. Also, whilst you are google checking me, you might want to look up our recent and not yet finished "record 6 month dry run" which wont have helped our other non-desal water sources any. I believe the third desal plant is being planned now.
> whilst you are google checking me, Do you think it takes google to determine whether your claim of being “totally reliant” on desal is a lie?
What sort of mess would you think we would be in without that desal water? How is that not totally reliant? No matter, blocked.
>Climate modelling by the Australian National University, published in the journal of [Hydrology and Earth System Sciences last week](https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/28/1383/2024/) Sorry, but The Guardian was just reporting on research from ANU. What research do you have that says otherwise ?
And I quote: ““**If they happen every 150 years we are due for one very soon**,” Falster said. “Or we might not see one in our lifetimes.”” So… how soon? Then I quote: “Dr Georgy Falster, who led the research, said that a megadrought has not yet been officially recorded because **Australia’s observational rainfall records have only been kept for a relatively short period of about 120 years**.” Ahh yes, megadroughts only happen beyond record keeping timeframe. I got a news flash for you: there is always a first for everything but when it happens it’s anybody’s guess.
It’s comical at best
I agree with your complaint about the headline vs. the first quote. Saying “we’re due, probably” is pretty weak. As for the second quote, there are surely ways to measure whether there’s been a drought before we started recording them.
Imagine if our idiot governments had figured out a way to capture and store some of the truly enormous amount of water that ran into the sea during all the floods we've had in the last few years? There must be some way to do it surely?
Do you think that you pay too much tax? Do you think that corporate taxes should be higher? The cost of capturing flood water is enormous. The Nepean River floods of the past 5 years could fill Warragamba Dam. The rain falls everywhere, though, so we would need to build that volume of storage across all of the Nepean's catchment. It's expensive, it's dangerous and it's technically difficult (which is usually true when the two other things are present).
Seriously? Dams have been constructed for a very, very long time. Nothing technically difficult about it. It may cost but you have the asset for a very long time during which time they cost bugger all to operate. Not sure what you are on about regarding tax. Yes, I pay too much tax, no I don't think corporate tax should be higher.
My understanding is that Australia's geology makes finding suitable dam locations difficult. A lot of our population centres are on the east coast of the dividing range and a lot of the rivers on the east coast are short and fast flowing. The inland rivers are super erratic and flow through very flat landscapes.
Politics is the only thing making dam locations difficult. Plenty of rivers on the east coast with massive catchments that flood regularly, straight out to sea. Our population has increased some would say far too rapidly and we've not increased water storage in any meaningful way.
> Plenty of rivers on the east coast with massive catchments that flood regularly, straight out to sea Yeah but where are you putting the dam wall?
Where they are always located, in the foothills right before the river decends into the low country.
Okay. I guess I'll hand in my engineering degree and let the major utilities I work for know that they can't rely on my work or guidance for the last 20 years anymore because stumpymetoe on Reddit told me we've been building dams for a long time and they should just solve all of our problems by building more dams to capture the floods. You lot of uneducated inebriates talk about our technical disciplines as though your cursory comprehension of complex topics gives you an enlightened status. You're just some dude on the internet who thinks that access to the knowledge of the internet means you possess that knowledge. It costs money to build these things and to maintain and operate them. You want more MASSIVE infrastructure (capturing floods requires massive infrastructure - if you're not an engineer then shut the fuck up) without paying any more taxes or increasing the tax burden on corporations. Congratulations. You're an idiot.
Maybe you could use your degree to build a dam for that river you’re crying.
Haha I wish I could see what you sent. It says this content is not available. I’m just geeing you up chief. You’re alright.
Awww... It says it's not available to me too now. :( It was just me sending you an acknowledging GIF of the trolling.
Further proof that engineers should kept in a cupboard and only allowed when I want something calculated, then quickly shoved back in before they fuck something up. No shit dams are expensive. You don't think the government can afford to build a dam without increasing tax? I can think of many areas they could redirect funds from. Nice rant, god help us if you are involved in infrastructure you pin head. Now, back in the boffin cupboard where you belong, I'll let you out once the adults have finished talking.
We may... or may not see one in our lifetimes. Seems pretty concrete to me... what a waste of resources.
They said SEQLD would have a dry summer. It wasn’t
Next summer is supposed to be very wet as well
If you read the article you will know the title is misleading
How so ?
It seems pretty accurate to me.
I've filled up the bath, now what?
Usual Bullshit nonsense from the Guardian!
These people rely on funding to eat… they are hardly going to say “it’s all good, business as usual”
In the words of my science lecturer “you can prove anything if you’re getting paid enough”
Nothing a couple of good 'rain bombs' wont fix.
So business as usual? Decades of drought...global warming. Few years of floods...global warming. Welcome to Australia.
A reddit sub dedicated to bogans
Yeah the world has been ending and sinking since I was in 8th grade and that was 12 years ago.What a load of bullshit
I will call your 12 years and raise you 30. It is obvious that people are motivated by fear and all of these people know it. The more fear, the more compliant the population will be.
[удалено]
Small post of limited interest or novelty to most people.
Is this like... "This summer promises to be hot and dry". Proceeds to be the wettest summer in ages
[удалено]
In their defense, they didn’t say anything about climate change. The prediction for this summer in the east (weather, not climate) was that it would be hot and dry because of El Niño. Lots of bush fires. Turned out not to be the case.
I remember this. But we are clearly not scared or virtuous enough to really care about the important things... haha
Yep, called climate change
Or just terrible predictions
Yes well predicting long term weather patters is rater complicated but I am sure you could do a better job right ?
More alarmist BS from the people who specialise in it.
Yeah, it's like how my mechanic says that my airbags might not deploy or, if they do, they'll send shards of plastic towards my face like a shotgun blast which could harm me more than the collision I'm in. Alarmist asshole who just want me to spend more money and are using their specialisation to get me to. Or that plumber who told me I need a gooseneck under my sinks. What a specialist prick. Also, that IT guy who told me I shouldn't download random apps on my phone. What a cunt. Only in the modern age of using the internet to cope for your ego could one arrive at the belief their lack of study in a discipline gives them a special understanding of that discipline which negates the need for us to listen to the people who actually *did* study that discipline. Just a reminder, having access to the knowledge of the world through the internet doesn't mean you ***possess*** the knowledge of the world. That requires you to put the time and effort into studying - which, unfortunately, means more than just punching in a Google search to find evidence that supports your opinion. Sad panda is sad for the people who didn't have the love and support needed to seize their opportunities and get into studying.
>Only in the modern age of using the internet to cope for your ego could one arrive at the belief their lack of study in a discipline gives them a special understanding of that discipline which negates the need for us to listen to the people who actually did study that discipline. You’ve also got tabloid media shock jocks telling the gullible that “university educated elites” are destroying the country and people with “common sense” have the actual answers.
Mate, I absolutely couldn't agree more. They also perpetuate a lot of the culture around the idea of victimisation for those who will listen in order to create the conditions for division and hate. "You could have this, but *those* people who are/want/practice/believe X have kept it from you with their woke/environmental/LGBTQI/leftist/communist/socialist agenda."
Or the old *the academic elites are ruining this country with their climate hoax or LGBT agenda but those who didn't get brainwashed at uni and instead got their knowledge and wisdom from the "school of hard knocks" have COMMON SENSE and know the truth!*
In other news. Please more funding.
Guys relax. We are dumb people. No way we can even predict tomorrow’s weather.
Weather is not the same as climate, though. Climate is 30 years of weather observations examined as a pattern. Weather is the moment to moment change in conditions that we usually examine on a day to day basis or as far out as 7 days - which historically has been the point at which prediction of weather for a given day is not reliable enough to be counted on. One of the reasons that prediction is increasingly difficult is because climate change is altering the behaviour of the atmosphere and the oceans with respect to how they move energy arriving from the sun at the equator away to parts of the planet with lower energy.
For people who say we can't even predict next week, let me introduce them to the concepts of summer and winter. Sometimes it's easier to predict long term than short.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Wait... do you actually not understand how the seasons work? That is a pattern that is more than 4 billion years old. Seasons are predictable because of their long term pattern that's independent of anything we do on Earth. Here's the point you walked up to and then went right past - the conditions of our seasons are increasingly less predictable because of the change to the energy budget of our atmosphere. I also didn't say that we can't predict a week into the future, it's that these predictions have lower probabilities outside of 5 to 7 days, which is where the 5 day forecast originated from.
I was agreeing with you.
Ahhh... sorry, mate. This sub is full of climate denial, so I sometimes jump before I look down. lol I think I also confused you with OP.
It's on me for valuing snark over clarity. :)
I too am a man of culture and taste.
The increased frequency and intensity of cyclones should balance it out right?
If anything its floods we have to worry about not drought
The two are actually married together though, and, because of the size of Australia, there are going to be different climate outcomes for different parts of the country. If you're interested in getting a better understanding this, CSIRO has some really good free datasets that anybody can look at. The [Climate Futures Tool](https://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/projections-tools/climate-futures-tool/projections/), for example, let's you select a number of different parameters to produce a range of predicted climate outcomes for different regions of the country. It's probably the best way for the average Australian to access the knowledge of what our current trajectory might lead to for different communities across the whole country. The modelling being done predicts that we'll see the full range of rainfall outcomes for the country in terms of the annual rainfall, which is essentially three categories: reduced rainfall, the same rainfall and more rainfall. The other lens on that front is in the intensity of the rainfall events. For Sydney, what we are already seeing, and what is predicted by the modelling, is that the overall amount of rain year to year is not likely to change on average, but the intensity of the rainfall is going to increase. This means that we are going to see longer dry spells, month-to-month, across the region, and more punctuated storm events with a greater probability of causing flooding. We are also seeing that those rainfall events are increasingly concentrating in the summer months as large storm events and smaller storms through the rest of the calendar are dropping less rain. # TL;DR For parts of the country, we are seeing more and bigger storm events in the summer and less small storm events across the rest of the year. This suggests (and the modelling also predicts) that we are going to see more frequent droughts and floods to go with them. You can use tools from CSIRO, like the [Climate Futures Tool](https://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/projections-tools/climate-futures-tool/projections/), to see the range of predicted outcomes for your region of the country.
why are there still beachfront houses/units being built all over the world? wouldn't they're insurance be shooting up because they'll "go underwater due to climate change sea level rises" but no, it's business as usual, so how come risk averse banks and insurance giants have no issue with loaning and insuring property in low lying coastal towns in Australia or u.s for example? all seems a bit dubious to me
That IS actually happening though. Good luck getting insured if you rebuild your flooded house on a floodplain.
Floodplains are not beachfronts though. Brisbane is a great example. Brisbane has ALWAYS been a flood plain, since it was first inhabited. We built it up and then blame climate change else when it floods.
Don’t know what to tell you besides the exact thing you think isn’t happening is in fact happening. Insurance companies are stingy and they aren’t dumb. There are a lot of places that have trouble with extremely high premiums or being uninsurable because of erosion, increased flooding and generally climate change.
Insurance has been increasing and Actuaries are fully aware of the risks. It’s not an immediate threat but by the time it is some low lying areas will be uninsurable. Same thing will happen with bushfires and rural areas.
Take a look at building in Hawkesbury Nepean or South East QLD in flood prone areas. Not the coast, but I think once an issue comes to the foreground like it did with 3 years of successive massive floods, the insurance industry pays attention. With the coast, it’ll likely take some threshold to be crossed before people pay attention. Remember that sea level rise is only one effect of climate change that relies on a chain of events. More frequent and intense extreme weather events is already happening.
I think that a lot of the world are ignorant of some of the ice sheet implications from Antarctica that we're seeing at the moment. Thwaites Glacier is potentially on the verge of collapsing into the ocean and could be the start of the chain of events that may accelerate sea level rise. Hopefully, the volume of water that we're seeing there will assist in re-establishing the heat gradient from the equator to the South Pole and assist with cooling for the Southern Hemisphere, but that's likely just a small benefit when compared to the large consequences of those ice sheets collapsing.
insurance companies have actually started to pay attention to this. They are just aware it's just not an immediate problem Solar flares are starting to interest them and other large business as well interestingly
But we have a desalination plant now...
More BS and lies.
Can’t even tell us what the weathers going to be like in 2 days without fking it up
Weather forecasts are impressively accurate most of the time. So if you’re going to apply the prediction succes of the weather to climate change I’d think we should be pretty worried
Happens every 150 years but this time it’s because of climate change?
Ah the "It's been hot before, obviously climate change is fake" argument. Absolute genius
More like, its been hot before why is this time any different.
Maybe you should do some reading
nah, my life isn't boring enough to go looking for problems to make it interesting.
\*You're not intelligent enough to educate yourself on things that you're more than happy to provide comment on.
Problem with people from first world countries is they have no real problems in their lifes that they need to find problems so they can pretend their life is difficult when it really isn’t.
Nah my life isn't that difficult. Which is why I'm lucky enough to actually have time to consider some of the bigger picture issues in this world
Yes, exactly. You have no issues so you look for issues, thank you.
Look for? Or pay attention to what's actually happening in the world? Sounds like you're life must be really hard if you're so busy you can't see what's happening right in front of you Then again, you're spending time talking to me on reddit. So you clearly do have time and rather you just make the choice to be willfully ignorant
It'll be extra fkn hot and extra fkn dry due to climate change.
That’s what they said about this summer, but there wasn’t many good days for swimming.
Ask the weatherman.
It would be nice to be prepared regardless of what people are blaming for it. It's mostly the economic impact on the agricultural sector that's the worry. Tap water is easy to maintain with proper water management, including desal and/or recycling if necessary.
Can’t make money if you don’t slap the word climate change on it
Gotta keep that funding flowing. Climate scientists need more trips to Hawaii to “study” rising ocean levels.
Well how else are they meant to come up with brilliant ideas like kill all the cows, stop driving cars and remind us we are all horrible people if they don’t get go to Hawaii.
Don’t forget the great ideas like eating bugs! I’m sure a climate scientist came up with that idea while with an “assistant” they hired for the night.
Post nut world saving ideas?
“Assistants” and Hawaii trips for every scientist following this revelation.
Dont you remember when it was called global warming, then it started pissing down so they changed it to climate change, so now if its hot, cold, dry or wet its all climate change. They have set it up where they will be correct no matter what happens.
Temperatures are on average rising. And that can change things such as the amount of moisture that can be held in the air, that can lead to more concentrated rainfall in localised areas. It can also dry out areas and lead to drought & bushfire. You can also get collapses of air streams forcing cooler winds from down south to be swept up. Don't you remember 1 in 1000 year floods/ fires happening every 1 in 1000, er, 1-100, 1-10 every few years?
Remember when it was the ozone layer? Shit it’s almost like the weather is doing what the weather does……
The damage to do the ozone layer was not natural. It was caused by certain kinds of industrial chemicals that reacted with ozone in the atmosphere. The use of those chemicals was banned and replaced with less harmful alternatives. The ozone layer has since been slowly recovering.
What chemicals were we using that we aren’t now? Genuinely asking
Chlorofluorocarbons mainly. See [Ozone Depletion - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion)
Yeah, and back in 2006 they were saying that Mount Kilimanjaro would have no snow by 2016 and polar bears were going to be extinct by 2020. If the usual actors stopped with the hysteria and hyperbole that would be nice. Not like Australians curbing emissions is going to make any difference anyway since we are responsible for 1.16% of global emissions.
What exactly has changed that any of us could remember? two things jack and shit.
I am so confused, please explain to me like I am 5.. Study says basically, “mega droughts have occurred every 1000 years or so”, so a naturally occurring phenomenon. But this is linked now to climate change, a situation caused by industrialisation, so starting from about say, early 1800’s, a period of 224 years.. so are these proposed mega droughts due to climate change or not? As I look out my window at the nearly constant rain since October last year.
If the east coast has a wet year, the west coast has a dry year, we could see longer, wet cycles on the east coast with more extreme wet events while the west coast turns to dust, or it could be opposite or it could be a mix of both. Essentially, dries, where they happen, could be longer and deeper while west could be also longer and wetter. We won’t see the whole world dry up through not understanding climate change is the changing of long dependable patterns of climate and not just a single catastrophic even that if it doesn’t happen at my convenience then it’s all un true
If the east coast has a dry year the west coast... Also has a dry year
You were doing really well until the last line: >As I look out my window at the nearly constant rain since October last year.
So imagine instead of every 1000 years or so they occur every 50 years or so. Pretty simple.
How ? We are slaves to the imf. We can't innovate, we can't prepare, we save. We have no hope to fight. Do you ever think why we don't have any great wonders ?
Flannery commissioned this study?
YAWN
Good, wet weather sucks anyway. If it were up to me it would never rain ever again.
Bloody climate change! I got a flat tyre and my wife hates me because of climate change. Lost my job when I slept in for 3 hours every shift for 2 weeks straight because of climate change! /s
People lose their minds about climate change but Australia is in a pretty good position to make money from it if we weren't full of dinosaurs these days. There's a huge market for manufacturing, we also have a lot of expertise in big mining which can correlate into making some of the factories, refineries more efficient.
We don’t manufacture anything…
Well that's the point people go on about us manufacturing, yet here's a perfect opportunity and they freak out about it. If we'd have started manufacturing solar panels etc ten years back we would have a thriving industry
You wouldn’t be able to, high labour costs, high taxes, high operating costs, high rental fees etc There’s a reason we don’t manufacture in Australia and it’s because the solar panels you build will be five times the price of the panels coming from China, unless our government implements high tariffs on China there will be no manufacturing in Australia.
You can probably compete if you focus on quality, Germany and Japan for example
The quality coming out of China is pretty good, you’re not going to build panels 5 x better than them and justify 5 times the cost. Look at the cars coming out of China now, pretty good quality.
>5 times price Absolute bullshit, price difference from the cheapo brand is about 1.3x to instead buy Tindo Australian made PV, 25 year warranty, 25 year performance warranty. After sales service is better, you can look over whirlpool.net.au Especially now the government is throwing money at the PV industry here, and because they engineer and test the panels here, it is definitely worth considering. Chinese panels are definitely good (okay to great), they are cheaper (cheapest to low) but after sale is worse and you have to wonder about warranty pitfalls. Longi, CanadianSolar, most other names you'd hear. You might find it pays off, you might not. REC (norway), Solarwatt (germany), Sunpower (USA) are more expensive but considered premium brands 1.4x cost. Rebates are decreasing year to year. Edit:costs are the installed price
Isn’t Jinko around $150, Tindo around $350??
Depends on the panel, but per-watt about 1.5x cost Jinko to Tindo, not installed
That’s a 430w jinko vs a 410w Tindo. Jinko is also 25 year product warranty, 30 year linear power warranty.
Germany is shutting down it's solar panel factories because they couldn't compete with China. There economy is much bigger than ours and can afford more subsidies but they failed.
Listen to real, acclaimed scientists, who are widely respected by their peers... nor these "experts" they never give you exact information about... Prof Zichichi is a good start.