"Dried up: climate change could leave another billion people without enough water"

http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/11/4828128/water-scarcity-crisis-for-us-fueled-by-climate-change

But wait, are humans moving into what I would argue is a savage "drying environment or climate" regardless, due to lack of ideas, lack of new information, uniformed discussion and too much comercialisation, essentially "sucking the life" out of human beings?

This virtually dead and lifeless 'drying climate' isn't getting better and no one seems to have any solutions and it seems to becoming very noticeable on discussion points on these pages.

Sigh. Why do we get uninformed opinion on OLO like this? Because heaps of people say it. But of course they are wrong. Since global warming was said to be an issue it has actually got wetter in Australia, and here is the official BOM graph to prove it. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries&tQ[graph]=rain&tQ[area]=aus&tQ[season]=0112&tQ[ave_yr]=0

Worried about water? Throw out your solar panels, turn on every electric appliance, and drive don't walk, would appear to be the message from this graph.

Actually, the anomaly map is even clearer http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries&tQ[graph]=rranom&tQ[area]=aus&tQ[season]=0112&tQ[ave_yr]=0

Unusually wet, cold winter in South Australia, despite all the dry, warming nonsense. Facts and obvious occurrences don't seem to affect daft alarmists.

The obvious difference between climate and weather doesn't seem to affect daft ignorists.

Where do you get this stuff NathanJ. You must frequent those propaganda sites that put out this rubbish, for people who don't check elsewhere.

At my place I have 26 years of personal records, but have the record back to 1893, with just 4 years not complete in it.

The driest 4 years, the only ones to record less than 500mm were 1918, 1919, 1992 & 1993, 1918 the driest. A bit hard to detect a trend there.

Last years flood was the highest in living memory, that of my 94 year old neighbour, who was born on his property, & I still can't drive a vehicle to my damn pump, without getting bogged. This has not happened before, in my time or in that neighbours either. I guess some could find a trend there if looking for some justification for a garbage theory, but what you would find wouldn't suit the warmists.

I know the warmists love to change the temperature record with a total lack of justification, but it is just not possible to justify change to the rainfall record, when some farm records are still using the same equipment they used over a hundred years ago.

Time to dice the greenie garbage & face facts. Detectable global warming is garbage, & changes in rainfall patterns is totally natural. Just ask the alligators marooned in remnant waterholes in the Sahara.

It may be because that the voice is not loud enough to be spread to the related department.--BOC Sciences Biochemicals http://www.bocsci.com/

Where I live, each years weather wind patterns seems to change. Several years ago easterly winds blow onto the east coast of NSW from June to December. The next year mostly southerly winds during winter were experienced. Westerly winds 10 years ago during winter were often experienced.

Carbon dioxide is a gas that is heavier than air. Carbon dioxide causing the 1990s claims of the hot house effect, seems to have been forgotten.

Ocean waters consumes carbon dioxide gas. The huge 65% of earth's oceans, oceans 2 mile deep?

Global warming; climate change, is one more irrelevant media irritation to many people listening to media because they have nothing better to do.

Climate change is one more reason for politicians to get in front of populations' faces. like priests going on about god, climate change is an opportunity to misdirect peoples real life concerns.

What may be happening is politicians don't have to do anything for citizens, while being seen to be somewhat doing something for the future.

Perhaps this will give you clearer picture of the situation in Australia.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=trend-maps&tQ[map]=rain&tQ[area]=aus&tQ[season]=0112&tQ[period]=1900

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=trend-maps&tQ[map]=rain&tQ[area]=aus&tQ[season]=0112&tQ[period]=1970

The northwest has got noticeable wetter, but the main areas where people live has got a lot drier, and this is just the point about climate change, the rain fall patterns are becoming more extreme.

Similar patterns are expected world wide, that is the wet tropics will become wetter, and the mid latitudes will become drier. Regardless of changes in rainfall pasterns, higher temperatures lead to higher rates of evaporation, which in turn means more rain is needed to avoid drought and bush fires.

It is also fairly certain that increasing population is only going to exacerbate global water problems.

The current situation in Australia is we are in an El Nino weather pattern, plus the Indian ocean is some 3 Deg C warmer than average. The El Nino leads to cooler winters, and hot summers in Australia.

The warmer Indian ocean generally leads to more cloud cover over Australia. So far this year the local climate is behaving as expected but watch out for this summer.

Many have seemed to be misunderstanding what I am trying to be saying, it is not just about a so called now traditional "drying climate" as per the environment, but many other factors that a taking out a huge chunk out of the lives of humans.

Many people are now so 'dry' in the context of less thought, a lack of ideas, no solutions, no real personal directions for the future, a lifeless life, opinions of the past 'drying out' due to different beliefs and money always seen now by some as being the answer for everything.

This is where the drying environment is a huge issue to address, let alone anything people may see as natural or not, also important. Environment and humans need to co-exist.

Warmair, you are confusing weather with climate. The map from the 70s proves little, as can be seen by looking at the map from the 60s. Cherry pick your starting point and almost anything is possible.

I'm also interested to know how they come up with those little puddles of drying. Why are they circular, and how is it that all around them rainfall can go up, but they go down? I suspect it is an artefact of the measurements.

There is no doubt that south west Australia has been drying out, and that there is more rain in the north in the last hundred years, but there is also more rain most everywhere else.

And the issue isn't where people live, so much as where they grow their crops.

Of course there is nothing in these maps to support the idea that weather is becoming more extreme. It's all pretty steady steady.

GrahamY
Actually no I am not confusing weather with climate.
Climate is usually defined as the average conditions over a period of 30 years whereas weather is strictly short term as in hours, days, or months.

The second link I gave started at 1970 which is actually the start of the period, when anthropomorphic climate change starts to become apparent, and is well within the definition of climate.

I specifically gave two links one starting one starting in 1910 and the other in 1970 to demonstrate that the climate was becoming more extreme. The longer the period you choose the less extreme the trend becomes, because it includes a longer period when conditions where stable. In fact if you step back through years starting in 1970 this becomes obvious.

Warmair, 1970 is not the point at which "climate change starts to become apparent". The IPCC et al say that was the 40s. I'd say that it hasn't become apparent yet at all.

But even if you were correct that it did start then, you would need to start your graph before that to demonstrate drying, not at that point.

And you don't really get climate. The 30 year figure is a figure for a minimum period. Climate changes over much longer cycles than that, it's just that you can't say much sensible for periods of less than 30 years.

We probably need more than 100 years to make any sensible comments. We've had two little ice ages in the last 400 or so, which is getting more to the levels where you might have a little more certainty. In fact 10,000 years ago it was warmer than now, so to strengthen the probability that man is causing the warming you'd need to really wait until that temperature was eclipsed. Even then it would be statistically iffy.

You also don't get "extreme". When they talk about extreme they mean much greater variation, and your maps don't demonstrate variation at all, just trends.

Graham

Global temperatures declined or flat lined from 1940 to about 1970. The increase in CO2 was only about 15ppm for the period 1900 to 1970, and temperatures could possibly be within natural limits. On the other hand from 1970 to the present CO2 levels have risen by about 75ppm, also we have had a marked increase in other GHGs such as methane, fluorocarbons and nitrous oxide.

http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/?/resourcecenter/slideshow/3/1

http://www.climateemergencyinstitute.com/uploads/AR5_Emissions_all_GHGs.png

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/global-temp-and-co2-1880-2009.gif

I accept that the term extreme is not scientific, but nevertheless there has been an obvious change in precipitation rates over Australia especial since 1970. I would also point out the grain growing areas have been particularly affected

Hi, what your graph demonstrates is that CO2 emissions took off in 1940, which is the appropriate point to start looking at manmade increases.

However, your graph has a number of problems, which most scientists in this area don't seem to understand, so not surprising you're perpetuating them.

One is that the effect of CO2 on temperature is logarithmic. So it is not appropriate to attribute the same effect to the last say 50 ppm as the first 50 ppm, which is what you are tending to do. Your justification for using 1970 is therefore spurious.

My justification for using 1970 is that this is when global temperatures noticeably started to rise, but I am willing to concede that The IPPC says that the appropriate point is the 1950s. I would also add that accurate atmospheric readings did not start until 1958 when Keeling started taking readings at Hawaii and the Antarctic although data from ice cores is considered to be quite good.

Quote IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)
"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed
changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed,
the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of
greenhouse gases have increased"

While I am in a charitable mode I will also admit I made a mistake in my previous post where I should have said the increase in CO2 from 1940 (not 1900) to 1970 was 15 ppm.

I am well aware of the logarithmic effect of CO2 concentrations, as is anybody who has taken more than a passing interest in climate science, but this is no means the whole story as feed backs amplify the CO2 warming effect by an estimated 3 times or more. The most important feedback is an increase atmospheric water vapour, which in turn is a powerful greenhouse gas, an increase of 1 deg C has the potential to increase evaporation by up to 17%.

Below is a very crude calculation based on (log CO2 level year2 minus log CO2 year1) Times 3

Year___CO2ppm __increase____ theoretical increase warming effect on globe Dec C
1850___285.2_______N/A__________N/A
1900__ 295.7________10.5________0.047
1940__ 311.3 _______15.6 ________0.067
1970__ 325.54_______14.24_______0.058
2015__ 400.01_______74.46_______0.268

But the effect of other GHGs such as methane and NO2 means that we have add in another 82 ppm CO2 equivalent to the 2015 figure.
this gives us a theoretical temperature increase pretty close to that actually measured of around 0.7 Deg C.

Data source:-
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/Fig1A.ext.txt

Chosing an area does not prove or disprove anything. You need to look planetary. Weather patterns, water has rising acidity as well as rising temperature and it is us that is causing rapid change.

Those of us who follow alternative media have known this one is BS for a long time.

Climate Change is a tool being used to support UN Agenda 21.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&nr=23&type=400

A tool to support global carbon taxes and to help a push for global government.

They've even got the Pope trying to push these policies now.
(The Catholic Church was infiltrated in part because of the sex scandals.)

- And our pollies are like tapeworms with the UN.
They don't just want to climb right up in there, they want to make themselves a home.

How can they support a global agenda and by loyal to our nation at the same time?

Never could understand this 'War on Carbon'.
Don't they know increased carbon is making the planet greener??

Can you give me some natural explanation as to why global temperatures have steadily increased since the 1970s. The only rational explanation I know of is the increase in CO2 and other GHGs and guess who is responsible for that.