Climate change and the consumer - news

I worked with climate scientists from the US, AU, CA, DE, and UK from 1990-2009 as a ‘tool maker’ of sorts so am quite biased on the veracity of their research. The consensus of evidence points in a direction that some people are not willing to accept today, and probably never will.

Inquiries are political beasts, not solutions to problems, more often than not.

5 Likes

Some WA residents are really putting their money where their mouth is.

image

3 Likes

“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”

H. L. Mencken

1 Like

The consensus is likely that there are a large number of contributing factors to the drought and bushires, ranging from natural factors to human induced factors. At the moment the media is very decisive in relation to blaming one factor, whether this is climate change, poor vegetation management (backburning through to clearing controls) practices, an MPs left foot etc.

Most who understand climate and weather systems would know that it is far more complex than a singular factor, and many factors both natural and human factors will be at play. Each will have their own role in the existing situation and change the risks to the natural and built environment.

It is unfortunate that those blaming singular factors have dominated the airways allowing those with differing singular views to discredit the other…also allowing them to reinforcing their own position or views.

Not necessarily the case and only applies to parliamentary or vested group triggered inquiries. There are many other forms of inquiries, such as through independent reseach (universities, CSIRO etc) which usually have access to leading experts in various fields to provide unbiased contributions to the research undertaken. Such in the past has and in the future will provide invaluable contribution to the discussion. Such research is also not about the 24 hour media cycle, nor sound bites, but about establishing facts associated with a particular event.

I only wrote that because

Recommendations of experts in the subject matter on the basis of research and evidence have been consistent and made for many years. Just one more might be enough?

edit:

5 Likes

A post was split to a new topic: Underinsurance…lessons to be learnt

A provocative thought. We might well have left it too late. It’s possible that we’ll need to abandon Australia, in part if not in total. How would we manage the retreat?

In response to recent posts in this thread, part of a comment from another forum:

Mealy-mouthed distinctions between “cause” and “increase likelihood/severity/duration” are a case in point.

[edit 1]

Morrison has indicated reluctant support for the concept of a Royal Commission into the current bush fires. Watch very carefully for mealy-mouthed weasel words in the terms of reference (assuming it comes to pass).

[edit 2]

Global warming is a primary driver of the fires and the preceding drought. Denial is either irrational or dishonest.

Australia needs action on many levels:

  • immediate relief for impacts of fires and drought;
  • increased resources and investment for inevitable recurrences;
  • medium-term (say, ten years) war-footing projects to radically de-carbonise our economy and make it fit for the future and;
  • prosecution of the culpable[1].

Ten years should be long enough to substantially transform our economy and set it up for a sustainable future. There will still be work to do, but planning for that should wait until we see how far we go by 2030. Australia’s renewable energy riches are greater than our fossil fuel resources (and renewables will never run out). We’ve delayed too long.

[edit 3]
This looks promising:

[edit 4]
And another possibility:

[edit 5]
OK, this is getting to be a bit much, but:
[1] Among the culpable, I’d rank Murdoch media high on the list. For their treachery, Australian assets of the empire should be forfeit. Proceeds could be devoted to supporting the ABC. Murdoch executives and family belong in prison (IMHO).

[edit 6]
A story of hope:

2 Likes

In relation to climate change and drought, the Bureau of Meteorology has a good webpage which summarises what causes droughts in Australia…

The BoM states:

Put simply, drought occurs when there’s not enough rain. In Australia, we have highly variable rainfall—after all, we’re famously a land of ‘droughts and flooding rains’. A lot of this variation—but not all—can be explained by what’s happening in the climate system. Australia’s climate is affected by a number of different drivers and some of them influence rainfall.

El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) are two major drivers of Australian rainfall—and an El Niño and positive IOD occurring together can reinforce each other’s drying effects. It should also be noted that while El Niño is often associated with low rainfall, it isn’t always the case.

The BoM also indicates the role that climate change plays in droughts in Australia. The BoM states that:

Is climate change making drought more likely?

Yes—in southern Australia. The State of the Climate report produced by the Bureau and CSIRO shows that for many regions there will be more time spent in drought, with a decrease in cool-season rainfall over coming decades. This is associated with a shift in the track of rain-bearing fronts so they now occur further south, rather than affecting Australia.

Since the 1970s there’s been a strong trend of lower rainfall in southwestern Western Australia in the cooler months, especially over May–July. In the southeast we’ve also seen a change from the late 1990s. In southwest Western Australia, the impact of the shift in fronts was seen earlier because these were the primary source of rain in the cooler months. In southeastern Australia, the impact wasn’t as marked initially because rainfall there comes from more varied sources, such as northwest cloud bands coming from the tropics and cut-off low pressure systems.

The decrease in rainfall, with the decrease in the number of very wet years, means it’s becoming harder to properly recover from drought, in terms of replenishing water reserves. This means that even though there may be enough water to meet short-term needs, we are more vulnerable if drought occurs again because we don’t have the reserves to sustain us over periods of lower-than-average rainfall.

Increasing temperatures can also play a part in increasing the impact of drought, by exacerbating the intensity of dry conditions. Australia, along with the Earth as a whole is warming because of increased greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere. The shift in average temperature means we are seeing more extreme weather, including temperature extremes.

The information on the BoM website indicates that climate change does not cause droughts, it however has increased the time that areas of Australia are in drought (increased severity) and also has affected rainfall patterns (declining trend since the 1970s) particularly in Southern Australia. It also appears that climate change may also reduce the the wet cycles between droughts (making drought recover more difficult) and also increasing temperatures associated with droughts.

1 Like

It’s only the science denying clowns in government, supported by Murdoch media, fossil fuel lobbyists and the brigade of shock jocks that many seem to listen to and believe, that are coming up with that straw man argument (that climate change causes droughts), so that they can knock it down.
No one who understands the science is suggesting that this drought is caused by climate change, only that CC is making things much worse, and that we can expect more of this in future as the temperature continues to rise. And rise it will, if too many countries follow Smoko’s lead in doing nothing about reducing emissions.

3 Likes

Agree, but it is is unfortunate that publically available information has somewhat been railroaded by armchair experts, keyboard jockeys, twittersphere, politicians, journalists, celebrities, activists and the list goes on that are stating that the direct cause of the current drought and fires is climate change or global warming.

It is lucky that we have the likes of BoM who are generally independent of the government to provide a popular scientific view on climate, its changes, its effects and its impacts. It will be interesting how much BoM is involved with the proposed Royal Commission, along with other independent experts.

1 Like

However, when viewed from the layman’s perspective and ‘the publics boots on the ground experience’ the differences are somewhat semantic even while not technically and scientifically correct. That the land mass is drying out with less rainfall and more warmer temperatures can be called ‘Zelda’ but that does not change what is happening.

Climate change exacerbates the affects of drought. With the level of linguistic ability, general attention span, and grasp of sciences and especially complex sciences, is it tilting at windmills to separate droughts, climate change and its impact on the outcome of droughts, and public / governmental responses when trying to get denialists attention? Yes, it does open the door to attack this specific issue or that specific issue (Gish Gallops), but that would happen anyway.

edit: Instructive why the media is what it is, how it is, both pro and con.

3 Likes

Does arguing semantics about whether global warming “causes” something or only makes it more likely/last longer/more severe, clarify or obfuscate? The latter, methinks, and that’s the intent.

Meanwhile, a little perspective:

3 Likes

Speaking of which:

Deliberate misinformation is a consumer impact (as are the deaths and destruction to which delaying action has contributed). The behaviour of Murdoch media is criminal in character. It should be criminal in law.

2 Likes

Hopefully such inquiries (there well be many I’d reckon, even per jurisdiction) will come up with something useful - however I don’t hold out a lot of hope that they won’t be substantially tainted by and motivated by politics - because when it comes to change, I feel the only people politicians listen to is other politicians (real or aspiring) …

4 Likes

You discount the ‘opinions’ of their donors? :rofl:

2 Likes

Scotty is consistent if nothing. Seems his voters think consistency is good even when it demonstrates an inability to learn. Will that be the same next week, and more importantly next election?

2 Likes

No need for further comment?

How do you measure the effects of the fires on:

  • Loss of environment - wildlife and vegetation*
  • Loss of lives
  • Cost of fire fighting
  • Loss of personal property
  • Damage to infrastructure
  • Loss of jobs and incomes
  • Loss of tourism
  • Damage to water ways and resources
  • Disruption from smoke and fire action
  • Etc

Fortunately parliament is not sitting in Canberra until February. We’ve been spared the added cost of needing to relocate it to another place, tba?

P.S.
Excuse me putting environmental impacts first before loss of human life. Both are tragic and unacceptable. I do challenge the views of some in the media that we need to clear/burn more habitat and destroy more of the environment to mitigate the risks to our own existence. Human kind in the short term is at much less risk of being driven to extinction than most other species.

3 Likes

The reality of this is that it has high probability of being yet another excuse for ‘look over there’, obfuscation, and an invitation for every arm chair crackpot and outlier to have their go. Predictably predictable. The political conclusion would surprise if it was anything more than a whitewash of business as usual and how good this government is.

2 Likes

My predictions are:

  • The federal enquiry (at least) will only come up with short term measures like emergency services, new water bombers etc, that they can throw some money at to show that they are ‘taking action’, or even ‘decisive action’. Most of such things are within the control of the States and this will be used as an excuse while urging the States to take more (short term) action. Hazard reduction burning and anti-arson measures will be in this list.
  • The opposition will hum along with the choir mostly but quibble over some details to look different. Labor will fail to grow a pair and not give the parts of the electorate who are dissatisfied with climate action a major party to vote for. Again.
  • Climate change mitigation, which is something that can be done locally without international cooperation, will get little or no explicit consideration at the federal level because it means admitting that the main climate change actions are and will be inadequate. Any action will be carried by the States. The feds may make general funding available to States that can be spent on mitigation thus allowing the feds not to have to acknowledge it.
  • The furphy that we are meeting our emission reduction targets will be continually repeated despite the fact that our emissions are growing $$$ and will continue to grow. One look at the trend graph over the last decade will tell you that ‘meeting our targets’ is nothing but creative accounting.
  • Some State enquiries will mention long term matters such as climate change policy and action but complain the matter is out of their hands and the feds need to do it. Even coalition held States will bag the feds because they feel the growing resentment of the people and they are not bound by a policy that can neither succeed nor be abandoned. Much better to focus the backlash on their federal colleagues than allow it to fall on them.

Overall little will be achieved. Whether the aim of political harm minimisation will be met depends on whether the electorate will retain their fury come election day and turn it into action and whether the opposition emerges from their coma. That is beyond my crystal ball.


$$$ Note the dip in the graph, that was when we briefly had a price on carbon but that is now the third rail that nobody wants to touch.

2 Likes

Complete and sage-like prognostication!