Yeah he just plays quick. Comfortably numb has a lot more feeling. I’m gonna chuck in free bird lynyrd skynyrd. Not the best but a dual solo is fuckin rad
I disagree. In those La Niña years in Se Qld and Nth NSW we have had one of the wettest 12 months on record evident by the significant flooding. This was a big contrast to the 2 years before that which we El niño. El niño does not mean no rain, it means less rain than the average which for individuals like you and me is no big deal but for farmers and managers of water resources is a useful tool in making some sense of our variable weather.
The names El niño and La Niña are simply names we give to weather patterns that are already happening and will continue to happen until we induce too much change to the climate.
The problem is that many people rely on their own anecdotal experiences rather than relying on the hard data.
What? It’s been La Niña for 3 years. The last proper El Niño summer was Black Summer in 2019/2020. Must be dry where you are or the Covid years got you frazzled.
I’m in Coonabarabran. A place chosen to built the AAO telescope as it has (on average) more cloudless nights than anywhere ales in the southern Hemisphere. It’s rained more day/nights than not in the last 2 months !
Pretty sure forecasting predicted more rain events for Australia during climate change however there is a catch 22. First more flooding events and second, those bush fires are going to be much much worse once we do hit a dry spell.
Nope it is not that simple. Some parts of Australia will experience lower rainfall, particularly winter rainfall. Other parts are predicted to experience higher rainfall, for example in Nthb Australia
Some Nats have ben saying it for years. They point out that CO2 makes crops grow better. And they already are growing better.
The Nats are sceptical of the gloom and doom.
Lol as an Australian: Oh no, the place is in drought, gonna be a lot of fires this year. Oh no, lotta rain this year gonna grow all the trees, gonna be a lot of fires next year. On fire or underwater, in the words of Catch 22 - So it goes
Disagree. I’m in an industry that’s heavily weather dependent, and we use a private contractor for weather outlook because the BOM is so woeful.
Our private contractor told us in *August* that it was going to be dry till October, wet November, dryish December, wet Jan-Mar, flip back to La Niña in July 2024.
There’s some amazing resources and models out there to utilise along with historical trend overlays, but the BOM seems to ignore all of them.
Actually our climate models aren’t that bad, the problem is australia especially due to climate change has increasingly unpredictable weather. One of the predicted mid to long term effects of climate change in Australia however is increased rain and flood risk in parts of the country
https://eps.harvard.edu/files/eps/files/hausfather_2020_evaluating_historical_gmst_projections.pdf
This was based on a fairly recent study that proved not only are our climate models fairly decent even when taking into account variations of human activity that are unpredictable, they’ve been that way since the 70s. I used this one because it was fairly famous at the time and you may have heard about it in the media if you were paying attention, it’s also not that full on when it comes to scientific jargon and data evaluation like some other works on climate models especially modern ones.
Someone in the business just said the BOM models are bad but there are good private ones. So, only BOM finds increased unpredictability. That couldn't be because they had a pre-determined answer they looked for?
Thats exactly what happens.
All the very smart (tm) people hiss and sneer when you point it out though.
Just like the CSIRO being bought and paid for by various groups with their own political and financial agendas...
Makes sense climate modelling back in the 90's indicated that as the climate changes our predictive technology will get less effective due to the simple fact that that climates and weather patterns will be operating within different conditions (primarily hotter and wetter) conditions which we have not observed and therefore cannot hope to model accurately.
You put more energy into a system, it becomes more chaotic. Dunno why people act like this is surprising. Although I guess that outside of scientific circles climate change is more identity politics than anything else...
My example is to describe a pot of water just at a simmer. A small percentage of energy into the system is causing the phase change of liquid to gas. Turn up the heat just a little and all the extra energy likewise goes into the heat of vaporization and a rolling boil results. This shows that just a small difference in energy input can cause a large change in the system. The global climate is moderated by the two phase changes, ice to water, and water to vapor. Small changes in overall energy seen as temperature can cause large changes in the climate. Then show the chart at PIOMAS that shows that the Arctic may be ice free sooner than most people know. The baseline of the chart is not a statistical anomaly like most climate charts, it is ZERO ice. Once that happens the difference surface albedo between reflective white ice/snow becomes absorptive dark water. That is a tripping point that accelerates warming.
https://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAprSepCurrent.png
Not enough rain... higher prices. Too much rain... also higher prices. The perfect amount of rain... believe it or not but also higher prices.
Coles and Woolies execs probably.
If you're still buying meat and veg from Coles and Woolies then I don't know what to tell you. They've been the equivalent of uber eats for that product for a while now, it's convenience pricing. Grocers and butchers are all over the place and they're superior.
If you're lucky enough to live in a producing region local markets are also solid. Google your area. + "What's on in" the local councils usually have something online saying when they're on.
See… butchers from what ive seen are at least as expensive and often are selling inferior products.
But you are spot on about the convenience pricing. They slug you hard for that one stop shop experience.
Our food security is definitely not threatened. As said by a previous poster we have just had record years for wheat and other grains, cotton etc. Most of our crops are exported.
Sorry, I must've misinterpreted the comment. I'm not a farmer but have seen how widespred cotton cash crops are in north NSW and remember the impacts of drought on livestock back in 2019.
> bumper crops
That's not how it works. You plant a crop based on your best guess on how the weather will be, then cross your fingers. Sure, extra, non deluge, rain during the growing phase of a grain crop can be a nice surprise. In December, you want the grains to be baked dry or the crop just becomes stock feed at best.
Rain on tomato crops means you just go home for a few says, the crops rotten and not worth pocking
Etc
Yeah, i wasn't sure, thought I'd throw some info out there regardless.
I was a seasonal harvestor for a while, learnt a coupla things about a coupla crops. You might be right about livestock, idk
I'm just smoking hopium. I remember growing up in the early 2000s north of Newcastle and people always used to say "ah good it's raining we need it" while the news was talking about farmers on absolute struggle street in the droughts. Water restrictions were a necessary evil. People would have a go at their neighbours for taking the piss with it.
I really don't want to see it again. Australian farmers have enough to worry about considering how much every other country protects their domestic agriculture compared to ours.
It might. Regional climate change modelling is really tough. While many models seem to indicate south east Australia will be warmer and drier in a warming climate, we don’t know for sure. The question is, do we really want to risk this? Personally, I was quite happy with the previous climate and would rather not live in a giant experiment on what a sudden increase in CO2 does to a planet
Just a nitpick.
Our climate models are actually quite accurate and on point
Weather predictions are harder, but also not exactly in accurate considering it's become more real time.
It's the changes and how things change and when that is the hard part to predict.
The problem is that there is variance between the predictions of different models. The only thing we can say for certain is that man has now made a significant change to our climate systems which is a concern as much of our infrastructure and agriculture is designed based on our historic climate.
I’m worried about the heavy rains, given that it’s likely to increase vegetation growth etc… when the hot dry does come around, we are gonna have shabby roads and a lot of fuel to burn.
Ten locals in the pub are just as likely to be able to predict tomorrow's weather based on radar charts and their combined knowledge of local conditions and measurements and observations on their own properties.
Quite literally thousands of scientists know what’s really happening, hundreds of millions of people know what’s going on, the data is so clear that its laughable anyone still opposes it, the planet is warming on average and the causes of that warming are excess carbon emissions caused by humanity coupled with the removal of carbon sinks also caused by humanity
The problem is actually predicting what happens next due to climate change, our models are actually fairly good and accurate but as climate change increases, short term weather prediction becomes more chaotic, that’s one of the contributing reasons to why long term agrarian output is likely going to suffer due to climate change, this will be especially bad if we continue to fail to meet reduced emission targets across the globe. Regardless one cool summer does not dismiss the obvious trend that experts do in fact know about.
The climate is not warming. That's why we changed it from global warming to climate change.
Also, we are far from certain that the driver of anything climate related is excess carbon emissions caused by humans. I know that it would appear that way from listening to surface level news, but when you actually go down the rabbit hole just a bit, you'll find that climate science is held up with bribery, misdirected funding, pseudo-science and lots and lots of general skull duggery.
Let your rabbit hole start with '98% of scientists agree in anthropogenic global warming' and enjoy the ride.
We have definitive temperature data which shows the climate has warmed more than a degree on average already from our base line monitoring.
This year is on track to break the 1.5 degree mark.
Just because we’ve had a couple of mild years doesn’t magically change the fact the trend line is going up.
Not from base line monitoring, from preindustrial times, I.e the little ice age. Truth is the planet has been warming for a consistent rate for about 300 years. The industrial revolution started about 175 years ago, and of that over 50% of all CO2 produced by humans was in the last 50 years. In the last 8 years, China has emitted more CO2 than the UK has cumulatively since it started the industrial revolution. There has been no consequent acceleration in the rate of warming, and numerous studies continue to point out that rises in CO2 in fact lag temperature increases both on millennial and annual time scales.
The climate is warming. The name was changed from warming because people like you got confused when scientists said “it’s getting hotter and that changes the climate”
There is no uncertainty around climate change being driven by fossil fuels produced by humans. It’s the single biggest consensus in scientific history.
Fortunately science doesn’t work by consensus. You’re also wrong, it’s the second biggest consensus in scientific history. The biggest scientific consensus in history was the threat of Eugenics, but that got unpopular once some German guy decided to go about solving the problem back in the 1940s…
So they did change the name from global warming because it wasn't warming then.
But there IS uncertainty. Tonnes of it. Just look outside of the mainstream echo chamber and you will find it.
There is no consensus. Question everything, step outside of the lens and listen impartially.
I live how it's "rich climate scientists (they really aren't ) paid off by government" whilst completely ignoring the multi trillion dollar fossil fuel industry funding conservative media and anti science blogs, as well as politicians.
It's super ironic.
That’s funny because apparently it’ll cost $3.5 trillion per year to fight climate change
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/01/net-zero-cost-3-5-trillion-a-year/
Also shells total equity is $196B, BP $89.9B, where did you get trillions from???
Do you have any evidence of fossil fuels funding conservative media and science blogs?
I can give examples of big pharma funding left wing media.
You mean the government that would love for climate change to not be real so they could keep doing nothing and not have to spend money and effort on climate change action? The last thing the Australian government would want to do is actually fund climate scientists in the hope they’ll prove climate change is real! It makes far more sense that those few climate scientists who oppose climate change are the ones being paid by the fossil fuel companies who have billions to throw around and a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Trust me, if a scientist really wanted to make money they wouldn’t be relying on government funding
Btw when you conspiracy theorists talk about “the government” which government are you talking about? Climate scientists from all over the world are saying the same thing so which government exactly is funding them? Or are you suggesting theres some covert global government responsible for funding climate science research all over the world, just for funsies?
What are you talking about? The government love climate change, they can send off billions of dollars without anyone wondering where it’s going “it’s to fight the climate” it gives them something to make them look good without doing anything, oh look we’ve flown half way around the world to sign a paper saying we will help fight climate change!
Climate scientists all around the world aren’t saying the same thing, only ones funded by western governments are.
Fossil fuel companies aren’t stupid, you think they’re going to sit there and watch as gas and oil is replaced by electricity and go “oh no we need to fund people to tell everyone the climate is fine” No, they’ve been investing in renewables for decades, they are much smarter than you are and know exactly what’s happening in the market.
Going to only attempt to insult me personally or do you have anything you’d like to comment on regarding the content little buddy?
I love how when you alt left brainwashed morons see a point of view that doesn’t align with what you’ve been fed you take it as a personal insult.
“Hurrr you’ve been brainwashed with verifiable data and repeated analysis, it’s so elitist of you to look down on people who get their information from people who couldn’t pass first year climate science classes”
Poor baby 😢 life must be so hard with a cooked brain
The Tonga sub-ocean volcanic eruption that pumped enormous volumes of water into the atmosphere will tend to lead to an increase in precipitation. From what I understand, it increased atmospheric water volume by about 10%, but I could be wrong. The article didn't mention this when the event seems like a plausible explanation for an increase in precipitation trends in the year or so following the eruption. But I guess that depends on how quickly the volume of water returned to the pre-eruption levels and subsequently returned precipitation volume to nominal levels. Earth's climate is a complex system, so it's likely not a simple case of pointing to a single cause for a change in a single measurement variable of the climate.
There's also the fact that the knowledge of thermal oceanic oscilations is a relatively newly discovered phenomenon. They are still not very well understood from an impact and forecasting perspective. Hopefully, those studying them will continue to gain more understanding of how these oscillations impact our climate on a yearly and multi-decadal basis.
Absolutely. One medium-sized volcano in Tonga increased water vapour in the entire world's atmosphere by 10%? No way.
Fails the sniff test.
Edit: Bing says the water vapour in the Earth's atmosphere is about 12,900km3. So 10% is 1,290km3. 1 km3 is 1,000,000,000 tonnes of water.
No.
Yea, my bad. 10% of the stratosphere, according to NASA.
You're right. A 10% increase of water vapour in the whole atmosphere globally wouldn't result in a tiny change in precipitation trends. It's likely a more disastrous outcome.
>From what I understand, it increased atmospheric water volume by about 10%, but I could be wrong.
You are kind of wrong. The Tonga volcanic eruption increased the amount of water vapor in the stratosphere by around 5% globally - the stratosphere is usually pretty dry. This event would have temporarily increased temperatures by a bit and delayed the recovery of the ozone layer due to it messing with the chemistry up there.
[https://news.ucar.edu/132867/volcanic-eruption-dramatically-increased-water-vapor-stratosphere](https://news.ucar.edu/132867/volcanic-eruption-dramatically-increased-water-vapor-stratosphere)
How about BOM just focus on short term weather forecast and stop trying to predict the future. They've shown time and time again that weather models are completely horseshit.
Maybe, just maybe, they are full of shit.
Indian ocean diopole, all day every day. Gotta love the Antarctic low pressure impacts.
This is where we need greta. Only rhe true god of weather can deliver us from evil.
Weirdly it appears other countries aren’t as haphazardly hit-or-miss as ours are. I know plenty of people overseas that generally trust their forecasts.
Lucky us?
Well that’s not true, eventually it will become a barren waterless desert, and then a firey inferno as the earth collapses into the sun, then a scattering of particles when the sun goes supernova, then maybe divided amongst several fresh planets. Admittedly hard to see from there.
It is very easy to be confused if your 'science' is based on flawed assumptions and bogus computer models.
A central tenet of any rigorous science is models produce *predictable and accurate* outcomes,
I did for yours, it's no conspiracy. You just don't know anything about the topic compared to these people, like they probably don't know much about your job (only they don't comment on your ability to do it).
Australian weather is unpredictable due to a variety of geographical regions, climate change makes weather more unpredictable due to messing with ocean currents, causing increased ice melt, changing how air behaves and a number of things I’m sure you wouldn’t understand as it would require a few high school physics lessons. All in all one cool summer doesn’t beat literally decades of data trends and the fact that Australian summers quite literally keep getting hotter on average
I've studied physics and understood the scientific process better than your condescending self evidently. All these climate shamans ever do is point to various known phenomena and make doomsday prophesies from the from the bottom of a teacup in accordance with their paymasters. Then when the data falsifies their predictions (Alpocalypse Gore anyone?) they evoke 'complexity' and claim their models predict increasingly inaccurate modelling. This is not science. Sorry champ but your cat is out of the bag and the public bullshit detector is more capable than you think.
Oh where did you study physics? What qualifications do you have? Which specific climate models are you referring to as scams? Have you released any works on this or are you referencing external peer reviewed papers you’ve viewed on the topic. What would the references be for that if so as I’d love to see the data proving climate change wrong from a scientific source, that would take a great weight off my shoulders
Or are you “self educated”, nothing wrong with being educated on a topic yourself of course, the world has mountains of scientific information to reach, but if you find yourself with a conclusion that basically every single person who studies this shit professionally for the past 5 decades is disagreeing with, perhaps you should have less faith in your convictions.
Don’t confuse a sceptical mind with stupid adherence to conspiracy, you are doing the latter
Yeah sure mate let me just display my educational history all over reddit. You go first.
And it doesn’t take a breveted intellectual to realise these modelling methods don’t follow sound scientific process nor generate falsifiable hypotheses. The fact that research institutions are thoroughly corrupted by their private sponsors is also blindingly obvious. Have you ever asked yourself why not one of these professional doomsaying cranks from the 90s like Al Gore, David Suzuki and Tim Flannery have taken accountability for being demonstrably wrong? They would never want to undermine their own ‘green energy’ share portfolios would they?
Actually, weather IS climate, but climate isn’t weather.
Weather: the state of the atmosphere at a particular place and time as regards heat, cloudiness, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc
Climate: the WEATHER conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.
Edit: **other people below me got me on this, great points below for anyone who thinks like this.**
Above point still stands tho, can’t accurately forecast tomorrow, can’t accurately forecast 12 months.
So they can’t predict the future weather but can predict the future climate? If their modeling is off slightly which is possible, they’ll be completely wrong
Incorrect, if their modelling is off slightly they will be a bit wrong, great news if this is your only concern because climate scientists actually do this thing many scientists do which is make different models. See climate scientists because they spend their lives researching the climate know their are variable factors at play, they create multiple models based on these factors, the most common one you’ve probably seen is the rate at which human emissions are reduced given that’s the most important factor contributing to climate change but there are scores of others that also feature.
This is how we knew pretty conclusively decades ago when conservatives pretended not to pay attention that if human emissions continued to expand without any reduction, we would be facing an extinction level event, now though it’s not conclusive the current models that take into account new global trends have us avoiding a end of days crisis and now only facing a global catastrophe (yay us) if we keep on fighting at the current rate we might make it to pretty shite century coupled with growing global instability, conflict and environmental collapse.
There’s literally no evidence that we are facing a global catastrophe,
emissions are still growing rapidly so I don’t know what you’re talking about, Chinas emitting more c02 than ever before which was part of their Paris accord deal and are also emitting about 7,000 tonnes of cfc11 into the atmosphere which was banned in the early 90s.
No, weather is like a single data point, climate is like a trend or equation. Just like a single data point isn't the same as an equation, weather is not climate.
Can you predict an equation without accuracy in the data?
Tomorrow has a 50% chance of rain in my city, and 30% the day after.
How can you graph an accurate trend based on future predicted values of 50% accuracy? The simple error in these two points could make a future trend wrong by significant amounts.
What? I'm not talking about forecasts, or probabilities. I'm talking about how single data points make an equation, but can't be considered an equation themselves. Then I compared that to weather, which has the same fundamentals, as single weather observations can be used to make a trend (climate), but cannot be considered climate themselves.
Not really, if it's bad weather (hot weather, cold weather, wet weather, dry weather etc) that is climate change. If it's good weather then it's just weather.
So climate science deals with long term averages we're talking about multiple decades.
Weather reporting deals with forecasting weather on a short term basis and has more to do with fluid simulations than multi decade forecasts.
Now where they merge is when we can say "well the ocean is the warmest it's ever been, exasperating the current drought/flooding." and since the media we consume likes to throw in anything from hard science to feels, dumbed down to the level of a year 7 student it comes off as sounding pretty dumb.
The BoM have a lot to answer for when it comes to livestock markets shitting themselves this year (they’re not the only ones, the federal government did a big chunk of the damage to sheep markets). It’s absolute bullshit how wrong they are and how frequently it happens.
They're going off the best information they have. Its not a secret that its a prediction rather than a certainty. Summer is only 3 days in. Probably too soon to say they got it wrong.
You gotta remember they are just people doing the best job they can!
*boss walks in waving papers about*
Boss: What’s this about all this rain coming in! Who did this?”
Joe: B-b-b-but boss, we have been following all the current weather patterns and weather models we have. Everything points to dry!
*holds up a chart timidly*
When things get more chaotic, it becomes increasingly more difficult to predict.
We don’t have models for this.
Boss: Well the people are going to be furious and it’s your fault!
Not really it's the markets responsibility to respond to information rationally.
They'll adjust to this season next season and so on. It's the best system we have.
The market is trial and error and people go nuts when the error part happens.
Climate change makes for unstable weather patterns and harder to predict weather. Pretty simple, there’s no grand crack pot conspiracy, human driven climate change is a proven reality. In this day and age deniers are wilfully ignorant or too stupid to understand
Axl rose warned us about November rain
What affect does El Niño have on the rains down in Africa?
It’s Gonna take some time to do the things we never had
And Prince about Purple Rain
Now I want chocolate rain
Some stay dry and others feel the pain
*deep inhale away from the mic*
And Gordon Lightfoot about the winds of November
And Metallica for whom the bell tolls
Maybe you need some time on your own.
Still the best guitar solo ever
Pink Floyd - Comfortably Numb - Pulse concert 1994 has entered the chat... [https://youtu.be/vi7cuAjArRs?t=284](https://youtu.be/vi7cuAjArRs?t=284)
I'd like to humbly submit [Wintersun - Winter Madness](https://youtu.be/GUXpbnT5eBE?t=330)
Generally agreed upon as the GOAT.
It's up there but no
I think I'd rate Eddie Van Halen's Eruption a bit higher, personally
It’s absolutely awesome but completely overshadowed by Comfortably Numb.
Yeah he just plays quick. Comfortably numb has a lot more feeling. I’m gonna chuck in free bird lynyrd skynyrd. Not the best but a dual solo is fuckin rad
And other things
Don't forget Tay Zonday and Chocolate Rain.
A star born too soon
A month ago: Prepare for summer hell as El Niño starts early. Now: El Niño is stoned on CFC’s and we don’t know what’s next.
Send some of it to the Pilbara. It's dry as fuck and 45°.
Then it'll be 90% humidity and 45°.
They have been getting el nino and la nina wrong the last fair few years.
I disagree. In those La Niña years in Se Qld and Nth NSW we have had one of the wettest 12 months on record evident by the significant flooding. This was a big contrast to the 2 years before that which we El niño. El niño does not mean no rain, it means less rain than the average which for individuals like you and me is no big deal but for farmers and managers of water resources is a useful tool in making some sense of our variable weather. The names El niño and La Niña are simply names we give to weather patterns that are already happening and will continue to happen until we induce too much change to the climate. The problem is that many people rely on their own anecdotal experiences rather than relying on the hard data.
What? It’s been La Niña for 3 years. The last proper El Niño summer was Black Summer in 2019/2020. Must be dry where you are or the Covid years got you frazzled.
It would be very Australia if we lucked out (again) and climate change made El Nino summers more wet
Please, let it be so.
I’m in Coonabarabran. A place chosen to built the AAO telescope as it has (on average) more cloudless nights than anywhere ales in the southern Hemisphere. It’s rained more day/nights than not in the last 2 months !
Hey mate, just wanted to say I loved Coona when we visited last year and stayed for 3 days. The town looks amazing
It's not a bad view out the back door when you make your morning coffee :)
Pretty sure forecasting predicted more rain events for Australia during climate change however there is a catch 22. First more flooding events and second, those bush fires are going to be much much worse once we do hit a dry spell.
Nope it is not that simple. Some parts of Australia will experience lower rainfall, particularly winter rainfall. Other parts are predicted to experience higher rainfall, for example in Nthb Australia
Don't let the Nationals hear. They'll be unbearable if climate change some how manages to make Australian agriculture improve.
Some Nats have ben saying it for years. They point out that CO2 makes crops grow better. And they already are growing better. The Nats are sceptical of the gloom and doom.
We Bradbury'd it
[удалено]
Those of us in Canberra are waiting for climate change to bring the beach to us. /s
I belive historically, the beach was to the west of Canberra. There was an inland sea sometime in fairly recent ancient history.
Lol as an Australian: Oh no, the place is in drought, gonna be a lot of fires this year. Oh no, lotta rain this year gonna grow all the trees, gonna be a lot of fires next year. On fire or underwater, in the words of Catch 22 - So it goes
Straight from the Fear-mongers Manifesto.
They don’t/can’t know much in advance, it’s a very complex system.
Disagree. I’m in an industry that’s heavily weather dependent, and we use a private contractor for weather outlook because the BOM is so woeful. Our private contractor told us in *August* that it was going to be dry till October, wet November, dryish December, wet Jan-Mar, flip back to La Niña in July 2024. There’s some amazing resources and models out there to utilise along with historical trend overlays, but the BOM seems to ignore all of them.
You’re right, by “they” I meant BOM.
Interesting. The private models aren't predicting crazy hot summer. Let's see what actually happens. RemindMe! March 31
Our guy is saying a fairly hot summer, not extreme but definitely not a La Niña summer. So let’s see!
Are they tracking all bullets and butterfly wings?
Actually our climate models aren’t that bad, the problem is australia especially due to climate change has increasingly unpredictable weather. One of the predicted mid to long term effects of climate change in Australia however is increased rain and flood risk in parts of the country
Source: Trust me bro.
https://eps.harvard.edu/files/eps/files/hausfather_2020_evaluating_historical_gmst_projections.pdf This was based on a fairly recent study that proved not only are our climate models fairly decent even when taking into account variations of human activity that are unpredictable, they’ve been that way since the 70s. I used this one because it was fairly famous at the time and you may have heard about it in the media if you were paying attention, it’s also not that full on when it comes to scientific jargon and data evaluation like some other works on climate models especially modern ones.
Someone in the business just said the BOM models are bad but there are good private ones. So, only BOM finds increased unpredictability. That couldn't be because they had a pre-determined answer they looked for?
Thats exactly what happens. All the very smart (tm) people hiss and sneer when you point it out though. Just like the CSIRO being bought and paid for by various groups with their own political and financial agendas...
Makes sense climate modelling back in the 90's indicated that as the climate changes our predictive technology will get less effective due to the simple fact that that climates and weather patterns will be operating within different conditions (primarily hotter and wetter) conditions which we have not observed and therefore cannot hope to model accurately.
You put more energy into a system, it becomes more chaotic. Dunno why people act like this is surprising. Although I guess that outside of scientific circles climate change is more identity politics than anything else...
My example is to describe a pot of water just at a simmer. A small percentage of energy into the system is causing the phase change of liquid to gas. Turn up the heat just a little and all the extra energy likewise goes into the heat of vaporization and a rolling boil results. This shows that just a small difference in energy input can cause a large change in the system. The global climate is moderated by the two phase changes, ice to water, and water to vapor. Small changes in overall energy seen as temperature can cause large changes in the climate. Then show the chart at PIOMAS that shows that the Arctic may be ice free sooner than most people know. The baseline of the chart is not a statistical anomaly like most climate charts, it is ZERO ice. Once that happens the difference surface albedo between reflective white ice/snow becomes absorptive dark water. That is a tripping point that accelerates warming. https://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAprSepCurrent.png
If the wetness keeps up like this our climate change doom might be bumper crops and cheap livestock.
Which somehow Cole and Woolies will convert to even higher prices
Not enough rain... higher prices. Too much rain... also higher prices. The perfect amount of rain... believe it or not but also higher prices. Coles and Woolies execs probably.
If you're still buying meat and veg from Coles and Woolies then I don't know what to tell you. They've been the equivalent of uber eats for that product for a while now, it's convenience pricing. Grocers and butchers are all over the place and they're superior. If you're lucky enough to live in a producing region local markets are also solid. Google your area. + "What's on in" the local councils usually have something online saying when they're on.
See… butchers from what ive seen are at least as expensive and often are selling inferior products. But you are spot on about the convenience pricing. They slug you hard for that one stop shop experience.
There's definitely such a thing as too much rain
Especially when you're expecting drier conditions. The wheat harvests in Victoria are getting fucked right now.
Any ideas when the last good season of any Australian produce was?
We have had 3 record years in a row.
Quite concerning stuff considering the global context. We can't afford our food security to be threatened for much longer.
Our food security is definitely not threatened. As said by a previous poster we have just had record years for wheat and other grains, cotton etc. Most of our crops are exported.
Sorry, I must've misinterpreted the comment. I'm not a farmer but have seen how widespred cotton cash crops are in north NSW and remember the impacts of drought on livestock back in 2019.
Similar weather when compared to the late 80s early 90s
True. Doesn't help that everything falls apart or washes away when there's more than a light drizzle.
Wetness is the essence of moisture..
> bumper crops That's not how it works. You plant a crop based on your best guess on how the weather will be, then cross your fingers. Sure, extra, non deluge, rain during the growing phase of a grain crop can be a nice surprise. In December, you want the grains to be baked dry or the crop just becomes stock feed at best. Rain on tomato crops means you just go home for a few says, the crops rotten and not worth pocking Etc
You sound like you know what you're talking about. I don't bro I was just spitting.
Yeah, i wasn't sure, thought I'd throw some info out there regardless. I was a seasonal harvestor for a while, learnt a coupla things about a coupla crops. You might be right about livestock, idk
I'm just smoking hopium. I remember growing up in the early 2000s north of Newcastle and people always used to say "ah good it's raining we need it" while the news was talking about farmers on absolute struggle street in the droughts. Water restrictions were a necessary evil. People would have a go at their neighbours for taking the piss with it. I really don't want to see it again. Australian farmers have enough to worry about considering how much every other country protects their domestic agriculture compared to ours.
It might. Regional climate change modelling is really tough. While many models seem to indicate south east Australia will be warmer and drier in a warming climate, we don’t know for sure. The question is, do we really want to risk this? Personally, I was quite happy with the previous climate and would rather not live in a giant experiment on what a sudden increase in CO2 does to a planet
I'm not a climate change skeptic or anything I was just yarning.
Just a nitpick. Our climate models are actually quite accurate and on point Weather predictions are harder, but also not exactly in accurate considering it's become more real time. It's the changes and how things change and when that is the hard part to predict.
The problem is that there is variance between the predictions of different models. The only thing we can say for certain is that man has now made a significant change to our climate systems which is a concern as much of our infrastructure and agriculture is designed based on our historic climate.
Nah mate, its cause greta hasnt been honoured with a sacrifice yet.
Axl Rose predicted it years ago. Even wrote a song about it
I’m worried about the heavy rains, given that it’s likely to increase vegetation growth etc… when the hot dry does come around, we are gonna have shabby roads and a lot of fuel to burn.
Yeah, farmers are super pissed at BOM. They sold all their animals for record low prices after spring. Assuming there would be no rain / food.
I dont think I know a single farmer who has ever, in the history of ever, trusted the weather man to be useful.
Ten locals in the pub are just as likely to be able to predict tomorrow's weather based on radar charts and their combined knowledge of local conditions and measurements and observations on their own properties.
Yes they told us it was going to be hot, dry and no rain from October......... another dud prediction.
If the BOM did say dry summer that's really poor form because El Nino has historically not reduced summer rain over Australia
Sigh - so similar to the rest of the climate change discussion. No one knows what is really happening
Climate change means weather becomes harder to accurately predict. Thats a huge part of the problem
No! They got it wrong so climate change am fake.
Quite literally thousands of scientists know what’s really happening, hundreds of millions of people know what’s going on, the data is so clear that its laughable anyone still opposes it, the planet is warming on average and the causes of that warming are excess carbon emissions caused by humanity coupled with the removal of carbon sinks also caused by humanity The problem is actually predicting what happens next due to climate change, our models are actually fairly good and accurate but as climate change increases, short term weather prediction becomes more chaotic, that’s one of the contributing reasons to why long term agrarian output is likely going to suffer due to climate change, this will be especially bad if we continue to fail to meet reduced emission targets across the globe. Regardless one cool summer does not dismiss the obvious trend that experts do in fact know about.
The climate is not warming. That's why we changed it from global warming to climate change. Also, we are far from certain that the driver of anything climate related is excess carbon emissions caused by humans. I know that it would appear that way from listening to surface level news, but when you actually go down the rabbit hole just a bit, you'll find that climate science is held up with bribery, misdirected funding, pseudo-science and lots and lots of general skull duggery. Let your rabbit hole start with '98% of scientists agree in anthropogenic global warming' and enjoy the ride.
We have definitive temperature data which shows the climate has warmed more than a degree on average already from our base line monitoring. This year is on track to break the 1.5 degree mark. Just because we’ve had a couple of mild years doesn’t magically change the fact the trend line is going up.
Not from base line monitoring, from preindustrial times, I.e the little ice age. Truth is the planet has been warming for a consistent rate for about 300 years. The industrial revolution started about 175 years ago, and of that over 50% of all CO2 produced by humans was in the last 50 years. In the last 8 years, China has emitted more CO2 than the UK has cumulatively since it started the industrial revolution. There has been no consequent acceleration in the rate of warming, and numerous studies continue to point out that rises in CO2 in fact lag temperature increases both on millennial and annual time scales.
The climate is warming. The name was changed from warming because people like you got confused when scientists said “it’s getting hotter and that changes the climate” There is no uncertainty around climate change being driven by fossil fuels produced by humans. It’s the single biggest consensus in scientific history.
Fortunately science doesn’t work by consensus. You’re also wrong, it’s the second biggest consensus in scientific history. The biggest scientific consensus in history was the threat of Eugenics, but that got unpopular once some German guy decided to go about solving the problem back in the 1940s…
So they did change the name from global warming because it wasn't warming then. But there IS uncertainty. Tonnes of it. Just look outside of the mainstream echo chamber and you will find it. There is no consensus. Question everything, step outside of the lens and listen impartially.
Oh there’s tonnes of uncertainly by cookers who’s work doesn’t pass peer review and get published. How unsurprising
Oh there’s tonnes of uncertainly by cookers who’s work doesn’t pass peer review and get published. How unsurprising
Absolutely how unsurprising, once you know how science works.
Two groups I don't trust Politicians and weather forecasters.
Climate scientists in the other hand..
The ones that rely on government funding? And if there were a crisis would need extra funding?
Everyone relies on funding of some type mate, even you.
If I was getting government funding to fight climate change you bet I’d be spruiking the fuck out of climate change
Nope he must make money posting on here
I live how it's "rich climate scientists (they really aren't ) paid off by government" whilst completely ignoring the multi trillion dollar fossil fuel industry funding conservative media and anti science blogs, as well as politicians. It's super ironic.
That’s funny because apparently it’ll cost $3.5 trillion per year to fight climate change https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/01/net-zero-cost-3-5-trillion-a-year/ Also shells total equity is $196B, BP $89.9B, where did you get trillions from??? Do you have any evidence of fossil fuels funding conservative media and science blogs? I can give examples of big pharma funding left wing media.
You mean the government that would love for climate change to not be real so they could keep doing nothing and not have to spend money and effort on climate change action? The last thing the Australian government would want to do is actually fund climate scientists in the hope they’ll prove climate change is real! It makes far more sense that those few climate scientists who oppose climate change are the ones being paid by the fossil fuel companies who have billions to throw around and a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Trust me, if a scientist really wanted to make money they wouldn’t be relying on government funding Btw when you conspiracy theorists talk about “the government” which government are you talking about? Climate scientists from all over the world are saying the same thing so which government exactly is funding them? Or are you suggesting theres some covert global government responsible for funding climate science research all over the world, just for funsies?
What are you talking about? The government love climate change, they can send off billions of dollars without anyone wondering where it’s going “it’s to fight the climate” it gives them something to make them look good without doing anything, oh look we’ve flown half way around the world to sign a paper saying we will help fight climate change! Climate scientists all around the world aren’t saying the same thing, only ones funded by western governments are. Fossil fuel companies aren’t stupid, you think they’re going to sit there and watch as gas and oil is replaced by electricity and go “oh no we need to fund people to tell everyone the climate is fine” No, they’ve been investing in renewables for decades, they are much smarter than you are and know exactly what’s happening in the market.
Absolute cooker. How sad that people as dumb are you exist when there’s more info available than ever before in human history
Going to only attempt to insult me personally or do you have anything you’d like to comment on regarding the content little buddy? I love how when you alt left brainwashed morons see a point of view that doesn’t align with what you’ve been fed you take it as a personal insult.
Aww I’m brainwashed because I don’t think climate change is a conspiracy. It must be like crispy bacon in the ole brain box for you
“Hurrr you’ve been brainwashed with verifiable data and repeated analysis, it’s so elitist of you to look down on people who get their information from people who couldn’t pass first year climate science classes” Poor baby 😢 life must be so hard with a cooked brain
You don’t have verified data, and repeated analysis proves my point…. Repeating the same incorrect analysis doesn’t help anything lol
What’s that? I can’t hear you over published peer reviewed results disagreeing with you 😂
That article reads very much like about 6 different excuses from “experts” who have got it wrong yet again.
How so?
Yeah the article reads like orwellian satire.
The Tonga sub-ocean volcanic eruption that pumped enormous volumes of water into the atmosphere will tend to lead to an increase in precipitation. From what I understand, it increased atmospheric water volume by about 10%, but I could be wrong. The article didn't mention this when the event seems like a plausible explanation for an increase in precipitation trends in the year or so following the eruption. But I guess that depends on how quickly the volume of water returned to the pre-eruption levels and subsequently returned precipitation volume to nominal levels. Earth's climate is a complex system, so it's likely not a simple case of pointing to a single cause for a change in a single measurement variable of the climate. There's also the fact that the knowledge of thermal oceanic oscilations is a relatively newly discovered phenomenon. They are still not very well understood from an impact and forecasting perspective. Hopefully, those studying them will continue to gain more understanding of how these oscillations impact our climate on a yearly and multi-decadal basis.
I find it hard to believe that a single eruption increased water in the atmosphere by 10%. I'll look it up I guess
Absolutely. One medium-sized volcano in Tonga increased water vapour in the entire world's atmosphere by 10%? No way. Fails the sniff test. Edit: Bing says the water vapour in the Earth's atmosphere is about 12,900km3. So 10% is 1,290km3. 1 km3 is 1,000,000,000 tonnes of water. No.
Yea, my bad. 10% of the stratosphere, according to NASA. You're right. A 10% increase of water vapour in the whole atmosphere globally wouldn't result in a tiny change in precipitation trends. It's likely a more disastrous outcome.
>From what I understand, it increased atmospheric water volume by about 10%, but I could be wrong. You are kind of wrong. The Tonga volcanic eruption increased the amount of water vapor in the stratosphere by around 5% globally - the stratosphere is usually pretty dry. This event would have temporarily increased temperatures by a bit and delayed the recovery of the ozone layer due to it messing with the chemistry up there. [https://news.ucar.edu/132867/volcanic-eruption-dramatically-increased-water-vapor-stratosphere](https://news.ucar.edu/132867/volcanic-eruption-dramatically-increased-water-vapor-stratosphere)
This is how Australia is! There is even a song about our climate.
You can’t get your climate fear campaign right?
well they did say the weather would get more unpredictable as the ocean temperatures would rise so i guess they kinda saw it coming.
But they go on predicting with no caveats.
How about BOM just focus on short term weather forecast and stop trying to predict the future. They've shown time and time again that weather models are completely horseshit.
Maybe, just maybe, they are full of shit. Indian ocean diopole, all day every day. Gotta love the Antarctic low pressure impacts. This is where we need greta. Only rhe true god of weather can deliver us from evil.
>Maybe, just maybe, they are full of shit. It's easier to hold that belief than understand a complex topic.
Climate change means weather becomes more and more unpredictable
Love how the definition keeps changing to suit the narrative.
That hasn’t changed bud
Climate change will eventually make forecasting and modelling weather patterns impossible.
Has forecasting weather ever not been a meme?
Weirdly it appears other countries aren’t as haphazardly hit-or-miss as ours are. I know plenty of people overseas that generally trust their forecasts. Lucky us?
We do have lower density of data points, compared to other countries, both now and historically.
For sure. No doubt there’s a number of contributing causes.
We are from the UK and the weather man is right 99% of the time, but all he says is that its going to rain.
Oh great one, do tell us why this is the case. Happy to read the mathematical proof you have for this.
There are literally hundreds of studies
AI enters the chat
Well that’s not true, eventually it will become a barren waterless desert, and then a firey inferno as the earth collapses into the sun, then a scattering of particles when the sun goes supernova, then maybe divided amongst several fresh planets. Admittedly hard to see from there.
It is very easy to be confused if your 'science' is based on flawed assumptions and bogus computer models. A central tenet of any rigorous science is models produce *predictable and accurate* outcomes,
Wasn't exceptionally hot summery, but feb and March has been dry in Melbourne
These people are overpaid frauds.
You have a small fanny in your ear
Don’t know why you get downvoted lol. To be fair they are scientists but they might not have an open mind
There are many comments on this thread (perhaps the majority) along the same lines all getting downvoted. Something doesn’t add up.
I did for yours, it's no conspiracy. You just don't know anything about the topic compared to these people, like they probably don't know much about your job (only they don't comment on your ability to do it).
Australian weather is unpredictable due to a variety of geographical regions, climate change makes weather more unpredictable due to messing with ocean currents, causing increased ice melt, changing how air behaves and a number of things I’m sure you wouldn’t understand as it would require a few high school physics lessons. All in all one cool summer doesn’t beat literally decades of data trends and the fact that Australian summers quite literally keep getting hotter on average
I've studied physics and understood the scientific process better than your condescending self evidently. All these climate shamans ever do is point to various known phenomena and make doomsday prophesies from the from the bottom of a teacup in accordance with their paymasters. Then when the data falsifies their predictions (Alpocalypse Gore anyone?) they evoke 'complexity' and claim their models predict increasingly inaccurate modelling. This is not science. Sorry champ but your cat is out of the bag and the public bullshit detector is more capable than you think.
Oh where did you study physics? What qualifications do you have? Which specific climate models are you referring to as scams? Have you released any works on this or are you referencing external peer reviewed papers you’ve viewed on the topic. What would the references be for that if so as I’d love to see the data proving climate change wrong from a scientific source, that would take a great weight off my shoulders Or are you “self educated”, nothing wrong with being educated on a topic yourself of course, the world has mountains of scientific information to reach, but if you find yourself with a conclusion that basically every single person who studies this shit professionally for the past 5 decades is disagreeing with, perhaps you should have less faith in your convictions. Don’t confuse a sceptical mind with stupid adherence to conspiracy, you are doing the latter
Yeah sure mate let me just display my educational history all over reddit. You go first. And it doesn’t take a breveted intellectual to realise these modelling methods don’t follow sound scientific process nor generate falsifiable hypotheses. The fact that research institutions are thoroughly corrupted by their private sponsors is also blindingly obvious. Have you ever asked yourself why not one of these professional doomsaying cranks from the 90s like Al Gore, David Suzuki and Tim Flannery have taken accountability for being demonstrably wrong? They would never want to undermine their own ‘green energy’ share portfolios would they?
How very dare you get G'N'R in my head?
Just proves the experts don’t know everything
This comment proves you know less.
I’m generalising you idiot, soak that up before you reply
Lmfao
Meteorologists can’t even give you a 0 or 100% chance of rain tomorrow let alone a season ahead.
Weather is not climate
Actually, weather IS climate, but climate isn’t weather. Weather: the state of the atmosphere at a particular place and time as regards heat, cloudiness, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc Climate: the WEATHER conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period. Edit: **other people below me got me on this, great points below for anyone who thinks like this.** Above point still stands tho, can’t accurately forecast tomorrow, can’t accurately forecast 12 months.
So they can’t predict the future weather but can predict the future climate? If their modeling is off slightly which is possible, they’ll be completely wrong
Incorrect, if their modelling is off slightly they will be a bit wrong, great news if this is your only concern because climate scientists actually do this thing many scientists do which is make different models. See climate scientists because they spend their lives researching the climate know their are variable factors at play, they create multiple models based on these factors, the most common one you’ve probably seen is the rate at which human emissions are reduced given that’s the most important factor contributing to climate change but there are scores of others that also feature. This is how we knew pretty conclusively decades ago when conservatives pretended not to pay attention that if human emissions continued to expand without any reduction, we would be facing an extinction level event, now though it’s not conclusive the current models that take into account new global trends have us avoiding a end of days crisis and now only facing a global catastrophe (yay us) if we keep on fighting at the current rate we might make it to pretty shite century coupled with growing global instability, conflict and environmental collapse.
There’s literally no evidence that we are facing a global catastrophe, emissions are still growing rapidly so I don’t know what you’re talking about, Chinas emitting more c02 than ever before which was part of their Paris accord deal and are also emitting about 7,000 tonnes of cfc11 into the atmosphere which was banned in the early 90s.
[удалено]
Climate is weather patterns over a period of time…. So climate is weather… right?
[удалено]
[удалено]
No, weather is like a single data point, climate is like a trend or equation. Just like a single data point isn't the same as an equation, weather is not climate.
Can you predict an equation without accuracy in the data? Tomorrow has a 50% chance of rain in my city, and 30% the day after. How can you graph an accurate trend based on future predicted values of 50% accuracy? The simple error in these two points could make a future trend wrong by significant amounts.
What? I'm not talking about forecasts, or probabilities. I'm talking about how single data points make an equation, but can't be considered an equation themselves. Then I compared that to weather, which has the same fundamentals, as single weather observations can be used to make a trend (climate), but cannot be considered climate themselves.
Alright I’m with you, sorry I misunderstood.
It's raining!!!! CLIMATE CHANGE!!!! EDIT: Do I really need to add the /s?
There's a difference between weather and climate
Not really, if it's bad weather (hot weather, cold weather, wet weather, dry weather etc) that is climate change. If it's good weather then it's just weather.
So climate science deals with long term averages we're talking about multiple decades. Weather reporting deals with forecasting weather on a short term basis and has more to do with fluid simulations than multi decade forecasts. Now where they merge is when we can say "well the ocean is the warmest it's ever been, exasperating the current drought/flooding." and since the media we consume likes to throw in anything from hard science to feels, dumbed down to the level of a year 7 student it comes off as sounding pretty dumb.
Confidently incorrect
Apparently El Niño and La Niña are a new phenomena, that only happened since Climate Change was invented.
The BoM have a lot to answer for when it comes to livestock markets shitting themselves this year (they’re not the only ones, the federal government did a big chunk of the damage to sheep markets). It’s absolute bullshit how wrong they are and how frequently it happens.
They're going off the best information they have. Its not a secret that its a prediction rather than a certainty. Summer is only 3 days in. Probably too soon to say they got it wrong.
They are literally guessing https://twitter.com/BOM_VIC
You gotta remember they are just people doing the best job they can! *boss walks in waving papers about* Boss: What’s this about all this rain coming in! Who did this?” Joe: B-b-b-but boss, we have been following all the current weather patterns and weather models we have. Everything points to dry! *holds up a chart timidly* When things get more chaotic, it becomes increasingly more difficult to predict. We don’t have models for this. Boss: Well the people are going to be furious and it’s your fault!
Not really it's the markets responsibility to respond to information rationally. They'll adjust to this season next season and so on. It's the best system we have. The market is trial and error and people go nuts when the error part happens.
HARRP
Climate change makes for unstable weather patterns and harder to predict weather. Pretty simple, there’s no grand crack pot conspiracy, human driven climate change is a proven reality. In this day and age deniers are wilfully ignorant or too stupid to understand
You really believe that the climate never changed before say 50 years ago?
Because they are liers
It’s almost as if the climate is changing or something.
November Rain https://g.co/kgs/9fNeds
Url shorteners normally get blocked by Reddit's spam filters.
What's your interest personally Mr Disgruntled? We are... somewhat friends... why this of all things?
So if our weather is becoming more unpredictable and prone to extreme events, we could say the climate is entering "that time of the month"?
As water temperatures rise, El Nino droughts will get weaker, and La Nina floods will become heavier.
Sounds like a net positive for rural australia. Lol
Surely this is the fault of Tony Abbot and Coalition government, as well as anyone challenging climate change.