Pacific Weather Swings and Climate Warming

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, but I am looking for actual statistics not general feeling based on news reports.

[b]Regular temperatures over 50'C become very difficult to live in and will bring major societal disruption by the drains on power etc. as does severe snow storms in the US.
Yet parts of the world live quite happily with high temperatures or snow storms. What s ...[text shortened]... it. I think the two biggest issues will be rising sea levels and the acidifying of the oceans.[/b]

The BOM site I referred to you to has data on the changes over the last decades. Others are numerous. The IPCC and US EPA are good sources of more statistics.

If we wait for all the data and statistics it will be too late. Can you perhaps think of other ways of assessing a situation to react in a timely and effective way. Statisticians are not known for their initiative and creativity I expect.

I am not basing my views on simply news reports. I mention the numerous repeated extreme events as only one aspect that tends to confirm the statististically predicted modelling. Here in Melbourne in the space of two years we have had the hottest day on record of 46.8 deg C. with associated enormous bushfires. We have had two huge dumpings of rain conveyed almost directly from the tropics caused by a category 4 and a category 5 cyclones to the north. The dams that were nearly empty by extended drought and that caused our state government to commence building a desalination plant costing billions, are now rapidly filling and we are dealing with much flooding, quite apart from what is happening north.

Today in this cool temperate climate we received 4 inches of rain in four hours. This monsoonal type weather has never before known in Melbourne. And strangely it fits perfectly with the statistically modelled outcome of increasing heat, to our oceans particularly. They probably won't do the stats on how all the weather fullfils the predictions for another ten years. Yep that's a great help, thanks. Telling us after the events is not enough.

People will have to adapt to extremes in temperature, but if you think severe regular snowstorms can't damage a major economy by stopping effective transport and communcations you are mistaken, or that 50 degree heat won't profoundly effect food production, death rates, power outages, and social stability in large modern societies (not nomadic) you are mistaken.

There are very few places that live "happily" with 50 degree temperature and usually surviving nomadically in sparsely populated areas. Preparation is seriously important (a reason for my rant) and will indeed help, as will the intensive use of technology. But that will be very costly and large areas of this planet struggle with the merest of resources, unlike others.

I mentioned the indigenous people's memory, not records. But oral history is discounted by western science. It is again a confirmatory and supportive part of a whole picture. To suggest I was implying they "kept records" is mischievous and concrete thinking.

Our level of concern could not be wider apart.

Originally posted by Taoman
The BOM site I referred to you to has data on the changes over the last decades.

Yes I am afraid I didn't see that link for some reason. I have looked at it and it is definitely interesting.
It seems both temperature and sea temperature have clear rising trends, but I do not see much marked trend as regards rainfall and certainly nothing of the unpredictability you talk of.

If we wait for all the data and statistics it will be too late.
Quite true, but making up statistics is no substitute.

Here in Melbourne in the space of two years we have had the hottest day on record of 46.8 deg C. with associated enormous bushfires.
But that by itself tells us nothing. Considering the number of locations in Australia and the short time of record keeping, it is probably that a record should be broken at least once a year on average. That the records will occur in groups is also true, so when they are occurring (like during an unusually strong el-nino or el-nina) one would expect many records to be broken.

People will have to adapt to extremes in temperature, but if you think severe regular snowstorms can't damage a major economy by stopping effective transport and communcations you are mistaken, or that 50 degree heat won't profoundly effect food production, death rates, power outages, and social stability in large modern societies (not nomadic) you are mistaken.
I am well aware that weather affects society, but my point is that society survives even in extreme weather. You seem to be claiming that change in weather will be enormously costly, whereas I am disputing that. You are omitting to mention the fact that some areas may benefit from climate change. For example Canada and the north of Asia could benefit enormously from being a few degrees warmer. All that electricity saved off the heating bill could be sent south for running air conditioners!

I mentioned the indigenous people's memory, not records. But oral history is discounted by western science. It is again a confirmatory and supportive part of a whole picture. To suggest I was implying they "kept records" is mischievous and concrete thinking.
Do you have any idea how long those oral records are kept? I doubt that they predate European settlement (and record keeping) to any degree of accuracy. When were the last floods according to the oral records?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes I am afraid I didn't see that link for some reason. I have looked at it and it is definitely interesting.
It seems both temperature and sea temperature have clear rising trends, but I do not see much marked trend as regards rainfall and certainly nothing of the unpredictability you talk of.

[b]If we wait for all the data and statistics it will be ...[text shortened]... eping) to any degree of accuracy. When were the last floods according to the oral records?

Yes, if the warming continues, some will benefit and it will help others around if there is enough benefit. The population factor is significant with balance/imbalance between available resources and need a factor. I still opine that to maintain a reasonable living standard above survival levels for millions of people in climate effected zones will be very costly.

I only mentioned the oral history of indigenous people to add to the limited record in a country with written records even shorter than the US. It wasn't a strong point scientifically or datawise, but trying to get a whole picture.

Seeking to decrease human produced greenhouse gases would appear to be a good direction at least. It is the growing human population and large sections of it catching up industrially that is effecting it. Some also overlook the billions of animals that we drag along behind us to feed us and all the input (methane particularly) that is giving to the equation.

It is the whole picture that must be taken into account, not individual records being broken, as you point out. But an accumulation of such extremes and from various places globally surely tells us something significant. No one's weather is isolated globally. Acting in the short term is evidenced by our local government investing billions in a desalination plant. Now the dams will be getting full again. It remains to be seen whether and when it will be required now.

It is in some sense the very unpredictability of the swings and extremes that are emerging that becomes a problem in itself. Such extremes can be coped with if they occur infrequently. It is a much greater challenge if they begin to be a regular occurrence, if they become the "normal" level of weather and no longer "extremes".
In data and statistical terms there is not enough yet to be sure, but the coincidence of the current events both here and globally with climate warming scientific modelling is a "heads up" at least.

Not sure why that was all in block, not intended.

The Victorian desalination plant will be needed, just not this year. Australia is a dry continent, and we cannot keep pumping up from the water table forever with impunity. I don't know if this current wet season is any indication of any real change, but Australia has always been a country of extremes, going from drought to flood and back again.

Remember the building of the Thomson Dam to droughtproof Melbourne forever? The Wivenhoe Dam was built above Brisbane to floodproof the city, after Somerset Dam turned out not to be big enough in 1974. In hindsight, it may be just as well that they did.

There is no such thing as a permanent solution, but if we are to continue to live on this planet we must observe and react to existing conditions, and also avoid extrapolating too far on the basis of past events.

Originally posted by Taoman
Not sure why that was all in block, not intended.

It means your important.

"Doctor says I'm impotent,I must be impotent!"

Originally posted by Taoman
I still opine that to maintain a reasonable living standard above survival levels for millions of people in climate effected zones will be very costly.

And I agree. But that does not mean that the cost savings in other countries wont outweigh it. I come from Livingstone which could do with a bit more rainfall.

I only mentioned the oral history of indigenous people to add to the limited record in a country with written records even shorter than the US. It wasn't a strong point scientifically or datawise, but trying to get a whole picture.
And my point is that the oral history you refer to is probably of no value in this instance. If you want to deal with climate change skeptics, you have to get your facts right or you end up making them more skeptical.

But an accumulation of such extremes and from various places globally surely tells us something significant.
I am sure it does tell us something significant, but you seem to have admitted that it has not yet done so.

Acting in the short term is evidenced by our local government investing billions in a desalination plant.
Despite the fact that you claimed the weather is getting unpredictable, I believe the drought/flood cycle in Australia is quite well known and the current heavy rains were predicted to be heavy even if the extent of flooding was not known. I suspect the builders of the desalination plant either did not check the weather forecast, or had some money to make.

It is in some sense the very unpredictability of the swings and extremes that are emerging that becomes a problem in itself.
You have made that claim several times, yet have provided no evidence for it.

Originally posted by Taoman
It is the growing human population and large sections of it catching up industrially that is effecting it.

As a third world citizen I am tired of this blame game. The truth is that the First world are still major polluters and the fact that they are no longer the only major polluters does not in any way decrease their guilt. As for per capita blame, it still lies squarely on the heads of the first world.

Originally posted by twhitehead
As a third world citizen I am tired of this blame game. The truth is that the First world are still major polluters and the fact that they are no longer the only major polluters does not in any way decrease their guilt. As for per capita blame, it still lies squarely on the heads of the first world.

I wasn't blaming them, because I agree, it is hypocritical of the first world to blame the third world as they seek to catch up along the same path the first world has already taken.
I was just stating a fact that is effecting the global warming issue. Blame games based on supposed guilt of either is pointless, its simply human history happening. It is a global problem that requires global rational problem solving. This is why I am pessimistic. I fear humanity won't be able to "get it together" enough to deal objectively with the emerging problem. Perhaps it is just all too hard and we must go through whatever happens with only partially effective mitigating effects.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I agree. But that does not mean that the cost savings in other countries wont outweigh it. I come from Livingstone which could do with a bit more rainfall.

[b]I only mentioned the oral history of indigenous people to add to the limited record in a country with written records even shorter than the US. It wasn't a strong point scientifically or data ...[text shortened]... m in itself.
You have made that claim several times, yet have provided no evidence for it.[/b]

No, I haven't any evidence of any substantiality re the statistical outcome of predictions. There is still insufficient evidence statistically and it will only be available after the accumulation of many events over 100 or more years. That approach ends up with science stating finally (and rather inanely) on the basis of final statistics what everyone has become well aware of by living through it and it is far too late. It is no help at all really, waiting til we see how statistically true a prediction is, by waiting til it HAPPENS!

I accept your point about the danger of referring to "oral history" as part of an argument. Climate change skeptics do jump upon such and blow them out of proportion and out of context.

What is being said by the various climate sites I have referred you to is based on weather changes to date and computer statistical modelling, seeking to take in as many factors as possible that are known to effect weather patterns. I expect you are aware of this, even if you dispute it, or some of it.

Floods and searing heat are written into one of our leading national poems, and I have lived through at least 50 adult years of it. It is the amount, rapidity and unusual nature that is showing now the alignment with the climate modelling. And I can but assure you it is not like it has been at all, and its getting worse. Being a big continent, it varies as to what type of change is happening in different places


We have just had two high category cyclones one upon the other up north, supposed to be of "100 year event" nature, and another about 5 years ago. The BOM is expecting more. Some towns now in Victoria alone have been flooded four times in 6 months, let alone towns in Queensland that have never been flooded before. Everyone is talking about the weather here and constantly gobsmacked by the changes. All this observation and emotion has no statistical value at all of course. But that doesn't mean the common observations are untrue.

I agreed with the building of the desalination planet at the time. Our major city was running out of water (Dams down to a record 26% and dropping) because the shifting of the weather pattern further south (again in alignment with climate warming modelling), the rains were falling out to sea rather than in the historical catchments. It is possible we will need the desal plant in the future, but not at present, although who knows, all is in flux really, including seasonal and La Nina/El Nino oscillations. Bigger, quicker and unexpected is becoming more the rule.

I have tried enough to convey what is happening here and I accept it is difficult for those not living here to appreciate the whole changing picture. It will be your changes you will have to adapt to.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
It means your important.

"Doctor says I'm impotent,I must be impotent!"

lol! 😏

Originally posted by Taoman
Floods and searing heat are written into one of our leading national poems, and I have lived through at least 50 adult years of it. It is the amount, rapidity and unusual nature that is showing now the alignment with the climate modelling. And I can but assure you it is not like it has been at all, and its getting worse. Being a big continent, it varies as to what type of change is happening in different places.

But the floods, as already stated earlier in the thread are in some areas not a new record. I am not sure how you judge the floods to be 'rapid', or even the previous drought years. What rapidity are you referring too?

It must be noted too that the flooding is a relatively new phenomena (post European settlement) and the cause is loss of rain forest thus leading to greater runoff. So measuring past rainfall by past flooding would be inaccurate. Changes in farming practices in the last 50 years may be as much to blame as changes in rainfall.
Does anyone have actual rainfall stats for this event and the last major flood?

Originally posted by Taoman
I have tried enough to convey what is happening here and I accept it is difficult for those not living here to appreciate the whole changing picture. It will be your changes you will have to adapt to.

Back in the 90's several unusual events happened in Livingstone (where I come from).

1. There was a frost one winter (unusual) and many of the trees went brown (they are not used to frost). Many of us youngsters thought this was totally unheard off and of course started talking about climate change. But one old farmer dug out some photos from the 60s showing icicles hanging from his fence - clearly and even colder frost than we had had.
It has not happened again.

2. A cyclone (or whatever they are called in the Atlantic) hit the cost of Mozambique causing major flooding and loss of life. We in Livingstone only caught the edge of it and experienced better than usual rainfall - and an unusual rainfall pattern.
Again fingers were pointed at global warming and again it has not repeated itself.

So the changes you are referring too, are they in the last few years, the last 10 years, 20 years, 30 years? Why does your observation trump my observation about anomalies in the 90s that have not repeated themselves?

I am not saying you are outright wrong, I am just wary of claims based on feelings rather than rigorous stats. Quite often we see in the spirituality forum people claiming that there is an increase in earthquakes, wars or other signs that the end of the world is near - yet when asked for stats they cannot produce any.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Back in the 90's several unusual events happened in Livingstone (where I come from).

1. There was a frost one winter (unusual) and many of the trees went brown (they are not used to frost). Many of us youngsters thought this was totally unheard off and of course started talking about climate change. But one old farmer dug out some photos from the 60s s ...[text shortened]... her signs that the end of the world is near - yet when asked for stats they cannot produce any.

Here's some facts about current deluge:

http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/queensland-floods-unprecedented.htm

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1021291/queensland-floods-break-records-bureau

And from Victoria:

http://www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au/news/local/news/general/central-victorian-floods-unprecedented/2048302.aspx

I am also making the point of increasing frequency of large (not necessarily record breaking) weather events.
I am aware of the emotionality factor. And many simply don't have an educated view of weather. Many now say there is now no climate change because its wet and the drought has ended. But the floods and the drought (up there with the best of them in our history) are predicted and connected by climate warming science.

You definitely can't say that one event is directly "due to climate change", but what of the holistic viewpoint tw? And I still say waiting till all the data is in won't help much. Some intelligent responses (not panicked) to probable increased intensity of weather is required now. If the people effected now stoically rebuild, as have the bushfire victims, what if in 10 years time it happens on this scale or worse again? The same goes for New Orleans. What about preparation? Hopefully better and safer structures will be built, but even then inferno's and flooding still will take their toll.
This time last year we were mopping up after a feiry unfightable holocaust that burnt through enormous areas of a tinder dry state. Cyclone Tracy that wiped out Darwin in the 70's was 50 km wide. The recent Cyclone Yasi was 750 km across and effected seriously the weather (and resultant flooding to varying degrees) of half the Australian continent from far north Queensland to southern Victoria and far into the interior.

The point you make about different setups with change of land use is important in effects of flooding etc. but I remain adamant this is, as a whole picture, nothing we have encountered here before in its impact, extent or frequency.

Originally posted by Taoman
Here's some facts about current deluge:

http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/queensland-floods-unprecedented.htm

Facts? I see nothing but wild statements such as "1 in 100 years", "unprecedented", "nobody could have predicted it", none of which are backed up with any facts.

My understanding is that:
The amount of rainfall is not unprecedented.
The amount of flooding has to do with the amount of runoff which has to do with agricultural practices.
The scale of damage has to do with the amount of building on flood areas.

I am also making the point of increasing frequency of large (not necessarily record breaking) weather events. I am aware of the emotionality factor.
You are aware of the emotionality factor, yet admit that that is all you are going on. You have no actual statistics to back you up and are basing your argument mostly on news reports (which we all know are not a particularly reliable source).

Some intelligent responses (not panicked) to probable increased intensity of weather is required now.
I agree.

If the people effected now stoically rebuild, as have the bushfire victims, what if in 10 years time it happens on this scale or worse again? The same goes for New Orleans. What about preparation? Hopefully better and safer structures will be built, but even then inferno's and flooding still will take their toll.
And none of that really has anything to do with climate change. Those are known risks and we have a past record to prove it. Whether there is climate change or not, New Orleans will be flooded again (the current measures are not designed to withstand a 100 year weather event and thus will fail in the next 100 year unless they are very very lucky).
Australia will have droughts and floods again. Get used to it. The real question is whether prevention is cheaper than cure.

This time last year we were mopping up after a feiry unfightable holocaust that burnt through enormous areas of a tinder dry state.
Sounds like bad fire management. They should have burnt through it in previous years (or during a safer season) or put in fire breaks.

The point you make about different setups with change of land use is important in effects of flooding etc. but I remain adamant this is, as a whole picture, nothing we have encountered here before in its impact, extent or frequency.
Yet you admit you have no stats to back that up. And for some odd reason you believe the stats cannot be collected until a future date. That doesn't make sense. Either there is a measurable effect right now, or there is no effect at all.