12th Mar 2019
FONT SIZE: A+ A-
Scientists predict the end of winter as we know it
Author: Ben Hocking
The end of winter?

Australians will no longer enjoy winter as they know it today and will experience a new season academics are calling ‘New Summer’, according to the latest climate data available.

A new climate tool created by academics from the Australian National University (ANU) takes existing data and communicates the impact of climate change in a way that people can engage with and better understand.

The new tool visualises data which shows that by 2050, winter as we know it will cease to exist and we will also experience a new season that is being dubbed ‘New Summer’.

New Summer represents a period of the year where temperatures will consistently peak in many cases well above 40ºC for a sustained period.

Using the tool, people can click on thousands of locations across Australia to see how the local weather in their home town will change by 2050. 

“We looked at the historical average temperatures of each season and compared them to the projected data and what we find everywhere is that there’s really no period of a sustained or lasting winter,” said ANU senior lecturer Dr Geoff Hinchliffe. 

“In 30 years’ time winter as we know it will be non-existent. It ceases to be everywhere apart from a few places in Tasmania,” he said. 

The tool – which uses data from the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) and Scientific Information for Land Owners (SILO)* – shows how by many degrees the average temperature will rise in each location and how many more days over 30 or 40ºC a location will have in 2050 compared with today. 

“As well as the data, we also focused on developing the most effective visual forms for conveying how climate change is going to affect specific locations,” said Dr Hinchliffe. 

“That meant using colour, shape and size around a dial composition showing a whole year’s worth of temperature values in a single snapshot.

“It makes it visually rich and interesting and gives a lot of detail in a way that connects emotionally with people by locating it in their own town,” he said. 

“We concentrate on visualisation and storytelling. We don’t want to misrepresent the data or suggest things that aren’t true, so the visualisation was instrumental in conveying the data in a way that can be interrogated. It’s like a graph, but more poetic,” said Associate Professor Mitchell Whitelaw.

“The research and innovation here is in the visualisation and compilation of all this data. Our innovation is in the way this existing data is communicated and presented – hopefully in a memorable, engaging way,” he said.

The visual climate tool was prepared for the Australian Conservation Foundation and can be viewed here.

Have a look at the climate tool. What does the future look like for your area?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    danielboonjp
    13th Mar 2019
    10:58am
    Global warming is due to humans.
    Now before you get argumentative, I'm no 'armchair expert', I'm no scientist but what I am is a fairly accomplished in the field of energy efficiencies, which also relates to cause and effect.

    When we go for a picnic, we ponder the stupidity of a table with fixed seats in the middle of an unshaded area.
    The reason I mention this is trees are natural air-conditioners (Google it).

    We have cut down more than 60% of the vegetation that was present 150 years ago.
    Vegetation/Trees mitigated volcanos emissions.

    So how do we humans contribute to global warming?
    1) cutting down trees / clear felling land
    2) the gasses we release (called fugitive gas) that come from CSG and burning coal is like putting on an extra jumper over the outer atmosphere
    3) what we burn - that was never burned before - is released into the atmosphere and retained in the atmosphere in varying densities;

    Coal 7,678 million tonnes burned in 2011 - 21 million tonne a day
    Heat: 33 MJ per 1 kilo of coal - 21,000,000,000 x 33 =693,000,000,000 a day
    Emissions (C02e) – 1.91 kilograms per kilo = 40,110,000,000 = 40 million tonne a day
    [ http://www.worldcoal.org/resources/coal-statistics/ ]
    [ http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/LunChen.shtml ]

    Gas
    112,090 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of natural gas in 2010
    Heat: 38 MJ per cubic metre of natural gas
    Emissions (Co2e) – 53.7 kilograms per e/GJ
    [ https://www.e-education.psu.edu/eme444/node/341 [http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/JanyTran.shtml ]

    Oil
    321,200,000 barrels = about 51,070,800,000 litres of fuel - 2011 - 88 million barrels a day
    Heat: 6,120 MJ per 1 barrel of oil
    Emission (C02e) – 2.34 kilos per litre
    [ http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx ]
    [ http://www.kylesconverter.com/energy,-work,-and-heat/megajoules-to-barrels-of-oil-equivalent ]

    These figures are 'old' as they are part of an assignment I did at Bond Uni (when I was 57), and they have risen and the vegetation is still being cut down and burned by LNP and Labor politicians alike, directing 'forestry departments' around Australia, some with the gall of a 'Frydenberg' of calling the burning 100, 200 and 300 year old tress as 'green energy'.

    I read a poster by a school kid (for their strike March 15) say "I am scared of your apathy
    ozrog
    13th Mar 2019
    11:13am
    Science science and more science must be right i guess.
    jackie
    13th Mar 2019
    11:32am
    danielboonjp....Thank you ...It all makes sense to me. The people this does not make sense to are those that invest in shares that contribute to global warming.

    The GREED from money worshippers will destroy the planet Their disease incapable of rational thought.
    GeorgeM
    13th Mar 2019
    8:28pm
    Climate change exists, yes, but humans have very little to do with it, anyone promoting the climate hoax (that it is caused by humans) is promoting a profitable industry. Sun, earth and moon mostly control it without much help from people, i.e. Nature is responsible for the cyclical changes since time immemorial. However, it is good to reduce pollution for the sake of our health.
    School kids must not be brainwashed by this nonsense - it is like communists brainwashing their kids in their ideology.
    Arvo
    13th Mar 2019
    10:44pm
    Global warming is real and humans made a huge contribution through industrialisation. As a result of global warming climate change has stepped on the accelerator. Those who live down south will experience warmer winters, the upside will be less cost for heating power, the downside will be hotter, dry summers, wild storms and possibly devastating tornadoes hitting urban areas and farmlands.
    Eventually, Earth will run out of oxygen and will become a dry desolate planet like Mars is today.
    GeorgeM
    13th Mar 2019
    11:26pm
    Sorry, but that is complete rubbish. Incidentally they gave up the term "Global warming" in favour of Climate Change as sometimes it was noticed to be global cooling in large parts of the world. When USA is freezing to extreme levels, on the other side of the earth, Australia experiences intense heat, etc. Just balancing out. As I mentioned, it is all cyclical, nothing to be worried out, no dire predictions are needed or sensible. Relax and go to sleep knowing the earth will be fine for as far as you can predict into the future.
    Old Man
    13th Mar 2019
    11:12am
    The different opinions of scientists causes concern when we are assured that the "science is in". I read an article by an eminent climate scientist and two things were interesting, firstly he wrote that a survey was sent to a large number of climate scientists and those scientists associated with climate. One of the questions was whether they thought that man had contributed to climate change and he wrote that it was obvious that the answer is yes. What he also wrote was that the question didn't ask for a qualification so a positive response could have included man made factors being between .05% and 100%. As we now know, the climate alarmists constantly quote that 98% of scientists agree that climate change (used to be global warming) is man made.

    Secondly, the same article was accompanied by a graph showing the climate over a 2000 year period and it shows that each 1000 years or so there is a warming trend. Roman times and the Middle Ages had crops being grown in far northern areas of Europe that are normally grown closer to the Equator. If the graph can be accepted then we are in a cycle of warming and will be for a few decades, quite normal. He also wrote about the melting ice cap which is in the Arctic but pointed out that the Antarctic ice is increasing.
    ozrog
    13th Mar 2019
    11:15am
    Climate change definitely happens
    Lookfar
    14th Mar 2019
    5:54pm
    Old man that is not analisys, that is just low grade (apologies) nit picking, - your second point seems to be that there are anomalies in every trend, so what?
    The Antarctic ice is melting big time, do you have proof to the contrary?
    ozrog
    13th Mar 2019
    11:16am
    Either you are a believer or not one thing climate does change.
    jackie
    13th Mar 2019
    11:41am
    ozrog..This is how the indigenous people of the planet have always respected the earth. That is why their lands were pristine before they were invaded by greed and money.

    We have a personal body and we have a universal body, and they’re both equally ours. When we have that experience and knowledge, it will become impossible for us to hurt the earth and for us, in turn, to be hurt by it. So my friends, don’t choose the word ‘environment”; look at the earth as your mother from where you were born, and also remember that all its beautiful forests, its flowers, and gardens, its trees, its atmosphere, its rivers — they’re all a part of our own biological organism.

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/earth-day-message_b_189989.html
    Rosret
    13th Mar 2019
    11:58am
    Jackie it wasn't greed - it was survival. The aboriginal people had enough food not to need agriculture and they moved on to better areas as the seasons changed.

    Meanwhile Europe became over populated, they had terrible famine so they had to find more efficient ways to produce food and new land.

    By 1970 scientists thought they had reached the world's population limit however due to advanced farming techniques, pesticides, food preservatives, and refrigeration we have managed to keep on increasing our world population growth unabated.

    We don't have climate change - we have over population. Not here in Australia - we have the message. We just have to get the message to the rest of the world.
    Lookfar
    14th Mar 2019
    5:56pm
    Ozreg, for better or worse? perhaps that is the question we should be asking.
    Rosret
    13th Mar 2019
    11:48am
    The person who wrote this needs to leave the university confines and travel 20km out of town to talk to a farmer.
    Due to the 1 in 100 year drought (it was this bad in 1903) there will be very little cloud cover this winter. Clouds keep the warmth of the earth in the atmosphere like a snugly blanket. This winter without rain it will bring colder nights and lots of frosts.
    By example the Northern Hemisphere had a polar vortex where temperatures were colder than the polar temperatures this last winter.
    Using the average mean to work out temperatures is also getting incorrect data. We are going to experience more violent storms and more extremes in temperature fluctuation while mother nature tries to right herself.
    Should the north pole melt the Atlantic gulf stream may stop rotating and that will plummet us into the next ice age.
    If the magnetic north does a polar swap (and it is over due and is moving) then we will have a quantum climate shift.
    If are air remains so polluted due to repeated dust storms and bush fires it will also reduce the amount of light reaching Australia's farmland. Just as volcanoes in the C19th lowered earth's temperatures resulting in a mini ice age. Higher particle content in the air will also result in less rainfall lowering night time temperatures.

    So don't throw out the winter woollies just yet.
    Knight Templar
    13th Mar 2019
    12:30pm
    The Australian Conservation Foundation are climate alarmists. Hardly credible.

    As for the Met Bureau, its 7 day published minimum/maximum temperature forecast (published on the BOM official web site) is continually amended on average 4 to 5 times daily each week. By the 6/7th day it is not uncommon for the minimum/maximum temperatures to be wrong by 2 to 3 degrees. Yet we're expected to believe these experts (sic) can predict the temperature to a fraction of a degree by 2050. Nonsense.
    Knight Templar
    13th Mar 2019
    1:14pm
    A factual example can be seen from the Bureau's forecast for Brisbane yesterday Tuesday 12 March.

    Seven days ago BOM forecast that the min/max for Tuesday 12/3/19 would be 23/34, this was amended to 22/35, and subsequently to 23/35, then 23/33 and finally 24/34 (Monday 11 March 2019). The actual recorded BOM maximum temperature for Brisbane yesterday was 37.7 degrees Celsius ... 3.7 degrees higher than forecast just 24 hours earlier.
    GeorgeM
    13th Mar 2019
    8:33pm
    Absolutely. Weather forecasting is the only industry where they are wrong around 90-95% of the time, and yet they still keep their jobs! Heaps of such people employed by the media as well. To hear such people predicting Climate Change forecasts is laughable. A lot of scope there for cost cutting - at least regarding funding for ACF and other institutions having these useless research and forecasting jobs at taxpayer expense.
    BrianP
    13th Mar 2019
    12:53pm
    Has anyone factored in the recorded rise in the amount of forest fires worldwide? And their effect on climate?
    Arvo
    13th Mar 2019
    10:54pm
    Everything ads up. Consider the contribution from the pollution of all oil wells set on fire during all of the Middle East war upheavals, Consider all of the atomic bomb tests worldwide. Consider the active volcanoes. Bushfires world wide. Consider the effect on our planet from heavy solar flares hitting Earth and so on, the list is quite long.
    KSS
    13th Mar 2019
    1:00pm
    Even if Australia shut down every mine, coal and gas generator, banned every motor vehicle, shut down every high energy demand industry, forced everyone to become vegan, shut down every airport and port and junk every aircraft, boat, ship powered by fossil fuel, banned all forms of plastic it would have absolutely no effect on climate change.

    Meanwhile, millions would be out of work, the economy would crash, people will starve if they are unable to hunt or gather as supermarkets become empty, healthcare as we know it will cease. Are all the virtue signallers ready to give up life as they know it? You know their mobile phones, cars, public transport, microwaves, most of their wardrobes, airconditioners, and on and on and on?????
    Lookfar
    13th Mar 2019
    2:28pm
    KSS, suggesting an extreme response does not negate a sensible response, indeed a sensible response, rebuilding our energy supplies to be totally renewable would create lots of jobs and wealth, as it is already.
    Old Man
    13th Mar 2019
    3:03pm
    You may be right, Lookfar, but until a battery system is invented that will store a baseload, renewables are merely a pipe dream. The CEO of an aluminium smelter states that the current batteries available would run his plant for 8 minutes.
    Arvo
    13th Mar 2019
    11:03pm
    KSS - By slowing down global warming, you slow down the intensity of climate change. Reducing carbon monoxide flow to the atmosphere is the only hope to allow Earth's vegetation to replenish the atmosphere with oxygen otherwise we will end up gasping for air just like those fish that died in our river system.
    KB
    13th Mar 2019
    1:33pm
    Climate change is happening and humans are responsible. We no longer will have accurate seasons. In the old days winter would be winter and so forth. We need to plant more trees which as danielboonjp acts as natural air conditioners Where possible people must public transport instead of cars Or car pool.cycle or walk. Daniel makes a lot of sense
    Old Man
    13th Mar 2019
    3:01pm
    I partly agree, KB, man is partly responsible. The amount of pollution spewed out by Eyjafjallajökull in 2010 was said to be more than all of man's pollution since the industrial revolution. Nature has contributed to pollution as well. One thing really bothers me, when I did biology at school a long, long time ago, we were told that we breathe out carbon dioxide which is taken in by plants and turned back into oxygen. One part of nature nurtures the other. Was I taught lies? Those advocating closing down Australia to save the planet would have us believe that carbon dioxide is no good for anything but poisoning the planet.
    Mandy
    15th Mar 2019
    1:00am
    Old Man they also condemn our farmers for the methane their animals burp but totally ignore that our farmer's agricultural produce takes carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Most of the fossil fuel carbon dioxide is produced in the northern hemisphere and by Australia exporting agricultural produce including meat we are doing our share in reducing the carbon dioxide. Sure the northern hemisphere eats the produce and returns the carbon dioxide to the atmosphere but now its their problem and up to them to do something about it.
    KB
    13th Mar 2019
    1:33pm
    Climate change is happening and humans are responsible. We no longer will have accurate seasons. In the old days winter would be winter and so forth. We need to plant more trees which as danielboonjp acts as natural air conditioners Where possible people must public transport instead of cars Or car pool.cycle or walk. Daniel makes a lot of sense
    Triss
    13th Mar 2019
    1:59pm
    Probably in a few hundred/thousand years people will hack through trees and thick undergrowth and find abandoned Australia and wonder why everyone left.
    Climate change has happened before, there are many ancient abandoned cities probably due to climate change. Yes, we need to try to buffer ourselves against extreme change but, like death and taxes, we won’t outrun Mother Nature.
    cupoftea
    13th Mar 2019
    2:22pm
    Sitting out side enjoying a cold beer in a shirt in February in England the coldest month of the year yes we have climate change
    cupoftea
    13th Mar 2019
    2:22pm
    Sitting out side enjoying a cold beer in a shirt in February in England the coldest month of the year yes we have climate change
    Lookfar
    13th Mar 2019
    2:23pm
    I think that oe thing this article does is point out that the world is gettig warmer, - this means that when Mr Morrison utters the platitude, 'the climate is always changing', it is a lie at this particular time, - the real truth, based on more measurements by more people than all of us together have had hot dinners, is that the 'Climate is always Warming', bit by bit, on average, every year, gradually approaching the 1.5 degree figure estimated by many as the point beyond which we should not go.
    Yes, the yearly variation is much more than the gradual increase, but that variation is on top of the increase, the increase does not go away.
    Arvo
    13th Mar 2019
    11:07pm
    Seasons change climate. The true expression is that the severity of climate change, due to global warming ,is intensifying rapidly.
    Arisaid
    13th Mar 2019
    2:24pm
    In our previous property - but still a suburban block - we had trees planted all around the perimeter. There was an area that formed a canopy. We had lawn and shrubs. On hot days we would sit on a seat out there as it was so much cooler. Trees are not valued enough on this planet!
    Arvo
    13th Mar 2019
    11:11pm
    The legacy and the history lesson of Easter Island has been ignored. We need grow mure rainforest trees and forest jungles.
    tisme
    13th Mar 2019
    2:57pm
    things are changing, have been for a while now , yet the government ignores things , even if 10 year droughts are normal its negligent of the government and the water companies not to prepare for it like now we are facing restrictions due as I said the the water boards neglect. ( what ever the cause may be ) ignoring the 10 year drought the govt waited till after Brisbane flooded to say we dont need dams . well we do now
    tisme
    13th Mar 2019
    2:57pm
    things are changing, have been for a while now , yet the government ignores things , even if 10 year droughts are normal its negligent of the government and the water companies not to prepare for it like now we are facing restrictions due as I said the the water boards neglect. ( what ever the cause may be ) ignoring the 10 year drought the govt waited till after Brisbane flooded to say we dont need dams . well we do now
    andromeda143
    13th Mar 2019
    5:02pm
    This model is really just a political statement in support of the climate change side of politics. As such it does not say very much of substance. It is just a computer model and we all know about the GIGO phenomenon.
    Climate change has been scientifically proven to be a serious problem for this and future generations, but climate is a chaotic phenomenon and as such cannot be easily predicted or modelled. The only thing that this model tells us is that temperatures on average are rising. The effect of such rises is merely to make the weather and other events (eg tsunamis, cyclones, droughts) even more chaotic and more difficult to predict. Also these events are tending to become more extreme.
    Stating that winters will disappear is an irresponsible and unprovable statement. It serves no purpose other than to engender panic in the community. Level heads and application of scientific analysis, followed by rational and systematic measures for combating the potential problems, will be what we need for our future preservation. Politicians and soothsayers are a great hindrance to the process.
    Lookfar
    13th Mar 2019
    6:50pm
    Andromeda, I would not be so quick to diss models, I subscribe to a weather analysis mob, - Oz cyclone chasers, they have access to at least 8 models, so they bring each one out, - particularly in the month ahead analysis, particularly in the Cyclone season.
    By this technique, they, and we, always are way ahead of the BOM, - in every respect, because the Bom only use one. eg with cyclone OMA recently, there was only one model, the Euro, that predicted she would not go to New Zealand but come towards Qld, although it doubted a land fall, - correctly.
    Working through the different models, we could see just what influences were operating, so we tended to agree with the Euro.
    Point is, if one looks deeper in to a situation the likelihood of being correct increases markedly.
    I live in Malanda, near Cairns, but 700 metres altitude, so we are app 4 degrees cooler than Cairns and get frosts almost every year.
    Cairns is expected to warm by 7 degrees, - this summer was their hottest ever.
    I have never heard of Malanda going below app. -4 degrees so with 7 on top we would effectively lose our winter.
    I would agree that the article was too sweeping, - there will still be a few places, - ie in the Snowy, where it is cold, but not that many.
    The problem for us is that winter is the dry time, and whilst that may change, it is very likely we will lose our rainforsts up here, and our tree kangaroos and many houses as we normally don't get fires.
    To not take precautions would be very foolish, as foolish as not taking precautions against cyclones now.
    The Court is no longer out with South Australia's big electrical blackout that the coal govt tried to blame wind turbines for, it was caused by a Sub-tropical Cyclone, (sometimes called an East Coast Low,) and the 21? electricity pylons that blew over and caused the blackout, were not strong enough because as is the case with most of the Southern portion of Australia, building standards do not factor in Cyclones as they were never there before, and Sub Topical cyclones are particularly bad in that the strongest winds are a lot further from the center, - up to 200ks.
    Stating that they are obviously there to stay is not irresponsible, but true, although I do of course agree that level headedness is vital, and certainly politicians, particularly such that blame fierce winds on wind turbines, etc, are the direct opposite of level headed, indeed there is where I see irresponsibility writ large.
    floss
    13th Mar 2019
    5:09pm
    POPULATE AND PERISH.For god sake stop this unwanted population explosion we are having in Australia more people more water use,so very simple and it will save money as well as water.
    Arisaid
    13th Mar 2019
    6:14pm
    In the 60's and 70's "we" were advised to have no more than 2 children whatever happened to that movement. The world is so over populated it is ridiculous. Yet it seems that in Australia you are put on a pedestal if you have umpteen kids. I.e. Mother of the Year is usually someone with lots of kids. Many religions demand big families. Wake up world we can't feed and water you
    musicveg
    14th Mar 2019
    3:08am
    Yes we need to curb the breeding, I just read about a couple that had 18 kids! And what about all the polygamists, they seem to have a lot too.
    pedro the swift
    13th Mar 2019
    6:17pm
    The answer is simple! Everybody commit suicide. Earth is saved!
    Worked for Jonestown.
    Lookfar
    13th Mar 2019
    6:52pm
    I presume pedro that you are planning to lead by example? :)
    adbob
    13th Mar 2019
    7:17pm
    Usual rubbish from the climate alarmists - which BTW is big business,

    It'll ony be a couple of degrees - nothing for most people to worry about - and virtually nothing to do with CO2 - was what the real climatologists said before the alarmists (Gore and co) waded in.

    It was an easy sell - it was what extremist greenies eagerly wanted to hear. Likewise the media. Nothing much to see here- wasn't much of a story - climate catastrophe was.

    I live in SE Australia - green grass at Christmas used to be a rarity. Last year - after a winter that seemed to go on forever (and two very mild summers) - I had green grass in an unirrigated paddock. It's a con. Follow the money.

    Climate change *is* happening - just as it has happened for millenia. Gore's temperature graph was correct up until the present day (back then). After that he got on a step-ladder to show his projection for what would happen if we (globally) didn't immediatley cut back on CO2 "emissions". Since then CO2 emissions have soared - temperature has not.

    Gore also predicted (by quoting others) that the arctic ice would all by now have melted - obviously it hasn't.

    Most climate alrmist predictions have turned out to be false. Then they come out with even more ridiculous ones. An untipped tipping point is supposed to be even more scary than a tipped one. Please - pull the other one - it's got bells on.

    Anyone who has ever been a police officer, or a schoolteacher - or even just a parent knows when they are being lied to - the story keeps changing.

    Greenhouse effect had some sort of logic to it. Excess heat mysteriously finding it's way to the bottom of deep oceans does not.

    Climate alarmists have given us increased diesel emission in cities (now about to be banned) - cancer-causing fumes from wood stoves in place of the demonised coal (in the UK Gove has started action aginst that). Greenies do more harm to the environment than good.

    It's time to stop saying "Well at leat they're trying to do the right thing."

    No they're not.

    They are self-righteous nasties. Once the boot is on their foot they kick hard. The professional ones are in it for self-interest. Their acolytes are useful idiots.
    Anonymous
    14th Mar 2019
    6:28pm
    They are making a lot of money and getting political clout by pretending to try.
    Anonymous
    14th Mar 2019
    6:28pm
    They are making a lot of money and getting political clout by pretending to try.
    musicveg
    14th Mar 2019
    3:16am
    There are too many variables in predictions, they cannot even predict next weeks weather correctly. I think it is meant to make people think, but unless we do something about curbing the resources need and encourage lower birth rates so we can catch up, we will have a lot of problems.
    andromeda143
    14th Mar 2019
    8:22am
    Lookfar,
    You make some good points in your reply to my comments. I am not against computer models. Indeed my pHD thesis was based on computer developing a computer model to predict and explain observed phenomena in interstellar clouds (chemical and Physical development). However, nowadays too much store is placed on predictions from simple models of very complex phenomena. Predicting next month's weather is not the same as predicting the next 50 years' weather, especially when chaos theory is involved. Moreover it is not the modelling I have issue with but the ways these models are used to serve political ends. Scientists do not usually make sweeping statements about the implication of their results. It is others who try to extrapolate what is not justifiable. I have no problem with the ACF commenting on climate change problems but they are in this case being unscientific.
    Lookfar
    14th Mar 2019
    1:11pm
    Hi Andromeda, I take your point, unfortunately it has led to most people not aware how serious the situation has become because the Scientists can not make the situation real to anybody except other scientists.
    The Fossil Fuel lobby takes advantage of that by shouting out stupid platitudes such as 'the Climate is always changing", which thanks to the media drowns out the life and death stuff.
    From that perspective perhaps you could agree that the article was not hysterical but simply headlined a real probability that people can relate to.
    Cheers,.
    adbob
    14th Mar 2019
    4:43pm
    @LookFar

    Why do you say that "'the Climate is always changing" is a stupid platitude.

    The Climate *is* always changing.

    Your mate Al Gore said it was in his graph (in his famous film) showing global average temperature change over past millenia.

    Al superimposed a graph of CO2 levels and claimed (without saying where the pre-industrial CO2 came from) that that was the driver.

    The temperature rise he got up on a step-ladder for was, at that time a future projection - based on no change in current (at that time) CO2 emission levels.

    In the meantime CO2 levels globally have soared (mainly due to the industrialisation of China and a few other countries but Al's scary graph has turned out to be completely wrong.

    It's noticeable that climate alarmism always consists of projections into the future. Climate alarmism has been around for quite a long time now and when you look at the predictions from when it started up to the present day it is easy to see that the whole thing is a scam - everything from melting arctic ice to earthquakes - let's not forget disappearing polar bears - and when all else fails roll out the barrier reef.

    Instead of reading the alarmist pres releases from the IPCC (they've got to keep th emoney rolling in) read some of the detail - it's a very different story. No amount of CO2 emission reduction will reducce global warming by more than a tiny amount. It's going to happen - it's manageable - most people will hardly be affected at all - a few will have to adjust.

    There are lots of good reasons for moving gradually towards cleaner and more renewable fuels. Climate is not one of them.

    The notion put about that it's the biggest issue of our age is a convenient way for politicians and big money people to ignore all the real problems.

    It's happening - it's happened before - it's manageable and it won't be very severe. That's what the real climatologists said back in about the late 70's early 80's - before their discipline (in most universities) got hi-jacked by charlatans on the make. Not really very newsworthy.

    There doesn't seem to be any argument about the fact that we'll reach a global temperature maximum - only how high it will be. After that (by definition of a maximum) we'll have global cooling - leading to lower global food production - but - unless something major changes - increased population. Now that *is* something to worry about.
    Mandy
    14th Mar 2019
    10:51am
    The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from the Consulate at Bergen, Norway.
    Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.



    Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
    Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
    Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable

    I must apologize. I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post 96 years ago. This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or possibly from horse and cattle farts.
    adbob
    14th Mar 2019
    11:25am
    Will they be releasing the source code for scrutiny?
    I bet not. They never do.

    In real science everything is up for scrutiny by other scientists.
    In phony spin it's not.
    Mandy
    14th Mar 2019
    1:13pm
    I did check scopes to see if this was a genuine report and they said it was true. I assume they were only writing about what was being observed at the time and making forecasts.
    Historically there have been previous warm cycles. When the Vikings discovered Greenland there were some inhabitable areas.
    Lookfar
    14th Mar 2019
    5:41pm
    "source code is a foxes tail, articles are Peer Reiewed or not. - that is real science.
    adbob
    14th Mar 2019
    6:10pm
    @LookFar

    Only peer-reviewed by simlar charlatans - and, typically - your answer doesn't run an argument in your own words for us to scrutinise but only requires us to believe some so-called experts - just like the ficticious 94% of scientists - whose names we never see - nor do we ever hear from the other 6%.

    If they have nothing to hide they'll publish the source code.

    Rest assured that they won't do that because they do have alot to hide - so do you.

    Try looking a bit farther.
    andromeda143
    14th Mar 2019
    6:19pm
    Hi Lookfar,
    After reading adbob's comments I concede that maybe fire needs to be fought with fire. His comments about CO2 level effects etc show a complete ignorance of science. Perhaps, the example of Venus should be mentioned. The trouble is that if a person refuses to accept scientific evidence there is no way to persuade him/her of anything by rational argument.
    I feel sorry for our descendants, our children, grandchildren and beyond. They do not have much influence over how our stupid politicians behave yet they will reap the benefits of this stupidity.
    adbob
    14th Mar 2019
    6:46pm
    "His comments about CO2 level effects etc show a complete ignorance of science."

    Precisely how. Global CO2 levels since (say) the early 80s are well documented'

    Levels in prior millenia (which Al Gore displayed in his graph, prior to mounting the step-ladder) are more conjectural, being based on ice core sampling etc but not subject to much challenge - how they came to be is another question - particularly since there was no industry around at the time.

    Sorry to offend the religion (that's what it is) of climate alarmism followers but your priesthood is taking you (and the rest of us) for a very expensive ride- and doing no good at all to the ecology of the earth - or "planet" - as they prefer to call it.

    BTW "ignorant' is very loaded (and rude) word. Disagree if you will but I am am very well qualified in science and I have been following this issue very closely for a long time. Most snowflakes only jumped on board post-Gore - ie his notorious film - which restored his fortune, which he had previously lost in his failed presidential run)

    16th Mar 2019
    11:01am
    On the one hand, the article says we will have no winters except in part of Tasmania in 2050, and on the other it notes temperature increases of only 3-4 degrees in places where it would require 10 degrees - or much more - to even hint at eliminating winter. One town I checked where maximums are around 10-11 degrees for months on end is supposedly going to be 3.7 degrees hotter. That means a MAX of less than 15 degrees. That can hardly be said to be 'summer'!

    16th Mar 2019
    11:01am
    On the one hand, the article says we will have no winters except in part of Tasmania in 2050, and on the other it notes temperature increases of only 3-4 degrees in places where it would require 10 degrees - or much more - to even hint at eliminating winter. One town I checked where maximums are around 10-11 degrees for months on end is supposedly going to be 3.7 degrees hotter. That means a MAX of less than 15 degrees. That can hardly be said to be 'summer'!
    Lookfar
    19th Mar 2019
    6:28pm
    Hi, Older and Wiser, I did say that certain areas would still have winters, - this is the whole problem with global Warming, - almost everywhere it is warming but a few places not, so the fossil fuel companies trumpet those few places as proof that there is no Global Warming, - that is why the scientists wanted it to be called Climate change, but wasting their time, the big money wants to deny everything that affects their profits, so they introduced this meaningless Platitude, the Climate is always changing, the sun is always shining, the fish are always swimming, but it is dishonest, it implies something but not.
    The Cimate is currently warming alarmingly would be a real phrase, - provable right or wrong, the fish are always swimming proves nothing and is an insult to the intelligence of the recipient, and should be vehemently rejected.
    As always I argue that there are two sides, the Australian People, and the Super Rich, the super rich seek to divide and conquer, Autralians need to get together and work it all out.
    Lookfar
    19th Mar 2019
    6:31pm
    As always I argue that there are two sides, the Australian People, and the Super Rich, the super rich seek to divide and conquer, Australians need to get together and work it all out.


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

    • Receive our daily enewsletter
    • Enter competitions
    • Comment on articles