Energy Matters Forums

[rg767]

The peaks in climate variability are bigger. I didn't mention peaks in water.

[zzsstt]

Are you sure they are bigger peaks? We have 100 or so years of data in Australia, which is next to nothing in comparison with the age of the continent, and yet this "terrible" year of floods is only the third worst!

The rainfall for 2009 was not the lowest on record (far from it) nor was 2010 the wettest, so the "variability" is not increasing. A quick look at the records shows several pairs of years with far higher rainfall differences. The only "record" for 2010 was that it was the wettest December, and only then by a small amount (at least two years have been within 15% of December 2010's rainfall even on a quick glance at the data). In the last 10 years there have been no other outstanding or massively unusual months or years, a string or fairly poor years but even that is not unique.

Looking at the rainfall data for my area demonstrates several instances where strings of below average rainfall are followed by a year or two of far higher than average rainfall. In fact, the vast majority of years are nowhere near "average" rainfall, they are mostly either a fair amount above or below average - i.e. the "average" as calculated represents simply a mid point in a string of either much higher or lower values.

It seems to be a failing in modern day humans that as we start to derive "average" values for things we also start to expect everything to happen according to those averages. The "average" value is not expected to appear every time, and yet these days we want to "treat" or "cure" anything and everything that strays from the average. If you roll a dice enough you will get an "average" result, but would you suggest that there is something wrong if you roll "6" twice in a row? If you roll it enough you will see strings of 6's!

So, we have had ten years of drought that were less extreme and shorter lived than the drought in the late 1930's and through the 1940's followed by a wet year that was less wet than 1950 (1948 and 49 both had significantly above average rainfalls as well). But that is not fresh in peoples minds, nor is it quoted in the press.

If you looks at the numbers, even for the miniscule 100 years or so of data availble in Australia, you will find that this is nothing that hasn't happened more than once. If we had accurate data for longer I have no doubt there would be more and worse examples, and I have no doubt that we will see more and worse examples in the future. Indeed the only thing I don't expect to see is a string of "average" values for rainfall, temperature or anything else! In fact in the 100 or so years of data for my area there have been only three pairs of consecutive years that were both within 10% of average rainfall, and not a single instance of 3 years in a row!

[rg767]

Yes, I am sure that by all measures that the climate can be shown to be shifting, and that the incidence of more extreme events is increasing.

I agree - averages are difficult, and context is required, but I think that it can be given a place in the discussion.

It remains to be seen what the variability of the last 150 years will tell us, but at the least the drought scenarios show progression towards more extreme events.

I do not believe that the flood situation currently being experienced has precedent, nor did the fires (speed, general ferocity) of a couple of years ago in Victoria. Nor the rainfall situation in WA.

Looking out from Australia, there is a lot more than 150 years data of knowledge, and widespread changes are being noted everywhere - stuff that can be easily measured like the length of Glaciers - stuff that doesn't need high tech measurement.

In some respects I don't feel the need to argue that variability doesn't occur - it always has, but on timescales that are far longer than the change occurring now, which neither mankind nor nature are able to quickly adapt.

Its whether we wish to be part of the next great extinction or not when the natural systems we depend upon are no longer reliable.

[Joey]

Its whether we wish to be part of the next great extinction or not when the natural systems we depend upon are no longer reliable.

Seriously what difference does it make what we know now , we certainly have never been able to change the climate to make it better suitable for us , what makes you think we ever will have that ability.
We have never had the ability to do anything more than make observations. , if we are to become extinct observation isn't going to be of any use.

[rg767]

The point is that the climate as it stands is eminently useful to us, and has allowed all of life to begin and prosper in the form that we know it.

Your comment about not being able to change it is cynical at best. We clearly already have changed almost everything.

What I don't get is if you think it is rubbish, and don't think it matters anyway even if we are on a course to extinction or not, why do you care enough to argue?

[Joey]

The point is that the climate as it stands is eminently useful to us, and has allowed all of life to begin and prosper in the form that we know it.

Your comment about not being able to change it is cynical at best. We clearly already have changed almost everything.

What I don't get is if you think it is rubbish, and don't think it matters anyway even if we are on a course to extinction or not, why do you care enough to argue?

Please show me where man kind has ever been able to alter the earths climate to their benefit ? there is no evidence at all we have had any detrimental effect yet man somehow imagines they are so mighty and powerful they can alter the earths climate to suit their needs.
Regardless of whether I care or not it's irrelevant as I am just an insignificant human living somewhere we barely comprehend let alone have the ability to tailor to our needs.

[rg767]

No, you may not comprehend it, but all that does it count you out of a meaningful discussion. A discussion I would invite anyone here to have with bona fide experts. The truth is that you wouldn't know where to start in that discussion, and you refuse to have it. You refuse to look at any evidence - don't go to the IPCC (even though you don't even understand their function), go to Realclimate. They will answer your posts.

We have altered the climate through various means, although I never said that have have altered it for our benefit: you added that.

We have accidentally altered the climate to our disbenefit, and the way we alter it back is by attempting to rectify the mistakes that we have made. If we are lucky, and quick.

You keep saying there is no evidence, again I say to you go and argue your point with some scientists, because the overwhelming body of evidence clearly shows otherwise, and you provide nothing but blanket denial.

Thats not skepticism, that's just denial, and it puts you in the company of big tobacco, et al.

[Joey]

No, you may not comprehend it, but all that does it count you out of a meaningful discussion. A discussion I would invite anyone here to have with bona fide experts. The truth is that you wouldn't know where to start in that discussion, and you refuse to have it. You refuse to look at any evidence - don't go to the IPCC (even though you don't even understand their function), go to Realclimate. They will answer your posts.

We have altered the climate through various means, although I never said that have have altered it for our benefit: you added that.

We have accidentally altered the climate to our disbenefit, and the way we alter it back is by attempting to rectify the mistakes that we have made. If we are lucky, and quick.

You keep saying there is no evidence, again I say to you go and argue your point with some scientists, because the overwhelming body of evidence clearly shows otherwise, and you provide nothing but blanket denial.

Thats not skepticism, that's just denial, and it puts you in the company of big tobacco, et al.

Skepticism sorry , it's the reality that you are way above that allows you to sit in the denial you accuse me of.
We will never be able to alter the climate to benefit us , Never!! there is no way we will ever be able to go back either , the population is growing at a far greater rate than any change will benefit.

As for you bona fide expert discussion crap , you have been part of a discussion with zzsstt that clearly makes anything you say laughable. , he point blank dissects any of the dribble you come up with to which you respond with another load of dribble ( from somewhere else ) .

So now you actually pretend to comprehend how earth was created ,it's operating limits and parameters but also have the ability to control it to suit humble little mans requirements! phffft! This is delusional a far greater issue than denial although clearly in your case they go hand in hand.

[rg767]

Joey your post is extremely ignorant. Have your opinion, but don't bother addressing anything my way again.

[Joey]

Joey your post is extremely ignorant. Have your opinion, but don't bother addressing anything my way again.

listen dreamer If you want to post extremely ignorant rubbish I am entitled to reply , when it becomes your forum you can demand anything you like.
Now that's a thought how about opening your own forum where you demand that all posts support your views and one sided (copy and pasted) propaganda. , it should be fun posting and replying to yourself.