4 ms·
Why? That's weather and short term. https://aqicn.org/map/sydney https://aqicn.org/map/sydney is the pollution in Sydney. Here is Jakarta https://aqicn.org/map/
by mikemotherwell 7y ago
Why? That's weather and short term. https://aqicn.org/map/sydney https://aqicn.org/map/sydney is the pollution in Sydney. Here is Jakarta https://aqicn.org/map/jakarta https://aqicn.org/map/jakarta
Look at the historical data: all red and yellow for Jakarta, almost all green for Sydney, with the last two months an exception.
Climate change is going to have little to no impact on Sydney now or in the next 50-60 years.
- andrelaszlo 7y ago> Climate change is going to have little to no impact on Sydney now or in the next 50-60 years. Can you expand on that statement a bit? What do you base it on? It seems like we are already seeing adverse effects of global heating (eg https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2912/satellite-data-record-shows-climate-changes-impact-on-fires/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2912/satellite-data-record-sho...) but maybe I'm missing your point.
- siquick 7y agoNot sure why you chose to compare to Jakarta? The two cities haven't historically had similar air quality.
- abraae 7y agoHow do you get from a map of the current air quality in Sydney to blithely saying climate change will have "little to no effect" on Sydney for the next 60 years?
- TuringTest 7y agoIt is a common trolling strategy, I have seen it applied elsewhere to delegitimise measures against climate change. It doesn't make any sense, but apparently it is enough to satisfy the unsophisticated blind followers of climate denialism. Anything that sounds contrarian and data-based is deemed a sufficient response to distract attention, which is scarce in most online discussion forums.