6 ms·

> these farmers have seen dramatic floods in 2017 and then droughts in 2018 They should be so lucky. Here in Australia we have large swaths of the country ent

by jussij 7y ago

> these farmers have seen dramatic floods in 2017 and then droughts in 2018 They should be so lucky. Here in Australia we have large swaths of the country entering their fourth, fifth and sixth years of drought with cities and towns now running low on water. Add to that we are now going into summer, just as we leave one of the hottest and driest springs on recorded. With climate change smashing Australia in the face we just re-elected a government that thinks climate change is a hoax. At the turn of the century Australia went through the devastating millennium drought and less that ten years later we face a drought that easily eclipses that disaster. I suspect what many have failed to realise is Australia is not really in drought, but instead is facing it's new norm.

gridlockd 7y ago
> With climate change smashing Australia in the face we just re-elected a government that thinks climate change is a hoax. For all practical purposes, this isn't an issue. If you have a depletion of water coming up then spending resources on curbing CO2 (which may or may not have an impact decades down the line[1]) is not going to be your first priority. You'll need desalination plants and you'll need to re-orient agriculture around what works in the future, not the past. edit: [1] Hold your pitchforks! What I mean here is that the efforts for curbing CO2 may or may not have an impact. I solemnly swear that I believe anthropogenic CO2 affects climate change!
- verbify 7y ago
  > curbing CO2 (which may or may not have an impact decades down the line) is not going to be your first priority May or may not have an impact?! 97% of climate scientists believe that the earth's climate has warmed as a result of human activities and continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects Sure, we need mitigation efforts, but we also need to prevent things getting much much worse.
  - claytongulick 7y ago
    > 97% of climate scientists believe that the earth's climate has warmed as a result of human activities and continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects Citation? I see this number stated a lot, but the actual polls that I've read don't agree with it at all. Where are you getting this number? (Original study source please, not circular news citation)
    - Jackim 7y ago
      https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024...
    - aplummer 7y ago
      Hi conspiracy theorist! Full of references including that number: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
    - NJRBailey 7y ago
      This paper seems to conclude that 97% of climate science research is in consensus with the idea that human activities are warming the Earth: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/04...
      - tito 7y ago
        Yes that’s the one cited by NASA as well. J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”
      - mistermann 7y ago
- tito 7y ago
  Yeah, I completely know what you're talking about in terms of water versus carbon dioxide. I work on climate solutions every day. My specific focus is on carbon and mining carbon from the air. However, loss of groundwater and water depletion is such a powerful short term challenge, it can take the spotlight away from carbon. Without water, a society grinds to a halt in hours and days. I'm interested in how others are thinking about that and keeping these balanced. EDIT: My suggestion for your statement above is: "which will have an impact decades down the line". It's the "may or may not" that brings out the pitchforks. Also, the "belief" thing on anthro-change is puzzling. Imagine reading notes on a discussion with Newton where someone to profess their "belief in gravity". Do we "believe in gravity" today? Wish we had a better word/term for this.
tito 7y ago
Nice assessment! Living in California, it's so tempting for me to point to the latest drought as "proof of climate change". But I find it safer to keep my climate discussions longer term, i.e. rising seas, overall warmer temperatures, less-stable climate. How are you balancing this in your convos in Australia?
- jussij 7y ago
  Australia and it's approach to climate change is rather depressing. There have plenty of signs indicating the country is facing serious climate change issues. But despite these warnings, we as a nation have had decades with little or no action. However, if the current Spring is any indication this Summer might be a turning point. The record Spring temperatures suggest we might be in for a record breaking hot Summer. Not only will that mean a worsening of the current drought conditions, but it also greatly increases the risk of serious bush fires (i.e wild fires). As recent Australian history has shown, when it gets hot and windy those are the perfect conditions for uncontrollably, raging bush fires.
mikelyons 7y ago
How do we avoid and prevent re-electing these types of governments?
- journalctl 7y ago
  At this point? A few decades of drought, fire, and famine is probably what it’s going to take. The science is clear, but you have to play the long game, and humans are notoriously bad at long-term thinking in aggregate. We’ve enjoyed unfettered growth forever, but the piper is coming...

by jussij 7y ago

gridlockd 7y ago

> With climate change smashing Australia in the face we just re-elected a government that thinks climate change is a hoax. For all practical purposes, this isn't an issue. If you have a depletion of water coming up then spending resources on curbing CO2 (which may or may not have an impact decades down the line[1]) is not going to be your first priority. You'll need desalination plants and you'll need to re-orient agriculture around what works in the future, not the past. edit: [1] Hold your pitchforks! What I mean here is that the efforts for curbing CO2 may or may not have an impact. I solemnly swear that I believe anthropogenic CO2 affects climate change!

verbify 7y ago
> curbing CO2 (which may or may not have an impact decades down the line) is not going to be your first priority May or may not have an impact?! 97% of climate scientists believe that the earth's climate has warmed as a result of human activities and continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects Sure, we need mitigation efforts, but we also need to prevent things getting much much worse.
- claytongulick 7y ago
  > 97% of climate scientists believe that the earth's climate has warmed as a result of human activities and continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects Citation? I see this number stated a lot, but the actual polls that I've read don't agree with it at all. Where are you getting this number? (Original study source please, not circular news citation)
  - Jackim 7y ago
    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024...
  - aplummer 7y ago
    Hi conspiracy theorist! Full of references including that number: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
  - NJRBailey 7y ago
    This paper seems to conclude that 97% of climate science research is in consensus with the idea that human activities are warming the Earth: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/04...
    - tito 7y ago
      Yes that’s the one cited by NASA as well. J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”
    - mistermann 7y ago
tito 7y ago
Yeah, I completely know what you're talking about in terms of water versus carbon dioxide. I work on climate solutions every day. My specific focus is on carbon and mining carbon from the air. However, loss of groundwater and water depletion is such a powerful short term challenge, it can take the spotlight away from carbon. Without water, a society grinds to a halt in hours and days. I'm interested in how others are thinking about that and keeping these balanced. EDIT: My suggestion for your statement above is: "which will have an impact decades down the line". It's the "may or may not" that brings out the pitchforks. Also, the "belief" thing on anthro-change is puzzling. Imagine reading notes on a discussion with Newton where someone to profess their "belief in gravity". Do we "believe in gravity" today? Wish we had a better word/term for this.

tito 7y ago

Nice assessment! Living in California, it's so tempting for me to point to the latest drought as "proof of climate change". But I find it safer to keep my climate discussions longer term, i.e. rising seas, overall warmer temperatures, less-stable climate. How are you balancing this in your convos in Australia?

jussij 7y ago
Australia and it's approach to climate change is rather depressing. There have plenty of signs indicating the country is facing serious climate change issues. But despite these warnings, we as a nation have had decades with little or no action. However, if the current Spring is any indication this Summer might be a turning point. The record Spring temperatures suggest we might be in for a record breaking hot Summer. Not only will that mean a worsening of the current drought conditions, but it also greatly increases the risk of serious bush fires (i.e wild fires). As recent Australian history has shown, when it gets hot and windy those are the perfect conditions for uncontrollably, raging bush fires.

mikelyons 7y ago

How do we avoid and prevent re-electing these types of governments?

journalctl 7y ago
At this point? A few decades of drought, fire, and famine is probably what it’s going to take. The science is clear, but you have to play the long game, and humans are notoriously bad at long-term thinking in aggregate. We’ve enjoyed unfettered growth forever, but the piper is coming...