I thought I might again.
If the likes of you and Lounge Lizard don't like it, it's staying.
The year in review released by the BoM today. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/#tabs=Overview
Driest year on record. 1.5C above average.
Just a precursor to the main event really.
Looking at a year in time is close to pointless, we need a longer snap shot to look at, the longer the better, like this one Craig shared, ideally we would have a few hundred years to get a better picture but obviously dont have that in reliable data.
Dont know about you but i don't see any type of pattern, i just see one crazy dry year, that could be due to climate change, but it could also be part of a natural cycle be it 100 plus year event or 150 or 200 year event, to know more we will need to observe another ten years or more longer the better.
Hence Why Andrew Pittman said "This may not be what you expect to hear. but as far as the climate scientists know there is no link between climate change and drought.
That may not be what you read in the newspapers and sometimes hear commented, but there is no reason a priori why climate change should made the landscape more arid.
If you look at the Bureau of Meteorology data over the whole of the last one hundred years there’s no trend in data. There is no drying trend. There’s been a trend in the last twenty years, but there’s been no trend in the last hundred years, and that’s an expression on how variable Australian rainfall climate is.
There are in some regions but not in other regions.
So the fundamental problem we have is that we don’t understand what causes droughts.
Much more interesting, We don’t know what stops a drought. We know it’s rain, but we don’t know what lines up to create drought breaking rains.”
Source (starts at around 1:10): https://soundcloud.com/sydneyenvironmentinstitute/adapting-climate-scien...
(and latter tried to squeeze the word "direct" in there to say no direct link" )
In regard to cyclones there is a clear pattern of reduction of non severe cyclones over the last 50 years and a slight reduction in severe over the last 50 years.
Love to see other visual examples of natural disasters show in graph or map form etc id expect fires follow rainfall but also obviously influenced highly by man as we start the majority of fires.
Floods also linked to rainfall but also how we have built cities and altered the landscape etc also is a factor.
Obviously earthquakes and tsunamis and volcanoes are rare in Australia and have minimal influence to climate above ground.
Disclaimer: not say climate change isn't real, we do know there is a trend of warmer temperatures on top of the natural warming trend (even if figures have been fudged a little), same goes for sea levels, a higher increase above the natural increase.
So yes, rainfall shows no real trend, besides being less predictable and reliable. So where we expected rain to fall before is now not reliable which isn't great for farmers. More extremes..
But the long term temperature trend, undeniable and looking to be accelerating..
Thats a better graph, can see a trend in those, although the temp one id like to see one with non adjusted temps.
Rainfall trend has definitely changed but it seems to have changed to chance of a much higher rainfall rather than lower (not what i expected), obviously the odd year out is this year.
If this is the case surely we should be capturing as much as this water as we can in those wet times to help us get through the dryer times that follow.
lets consider this, if it was about 1937-8 and we were going through the same movement of climate change publicly in media for the last 10 years, we would all be freaking out because we would be towards the end of a 15 year drought not knowing it was going to ever end, and I'm sure the media would be saying it was the new normal, but then we can see it all changed.
Perhaps I missed it, but where on that BoM update does it talk about a 100 year drying trend? All I saw was a reporting of the data for the year we just had (and in once instance a 3 year grouping). In fact, in the literature I’ve read (keep in mind there’s more than an individual can read/keep up with), I’ve not seen anything that explicitly or implicitly says Australia has been experiencing a drying trend for the past 100 years. Can you please point to your source?
“Dont know about you but i don't see any type of pattern…” Cool. Though I hope anyone reading your qualified expert opinion with a solid heft of salt given it’s from a bloke on a forum eye balling a low-res image saying “I can’t see any trend”, relative the scientists who perform statistical analyses of the data.
We can and do look back further than 100 years of specific weather station monitoring datasets. So you are wrong about that. They use proxies. The problem is the coverage of suitable proxy datasets isn’t as comprehensive as a network of weather stations, so the conclusions drawn from these carry a myriad of qualifying statements regarding residual uncertainties. The report from relevant researchers (not to be confused with whatever you hear The Greens blathering on about). Are you aware of this?
Andrew Pittmans is correct. Though be careful about extrapolating too far from what he is saying. From the literature I’ve read and the people I speak to, I presume what he’s getting at (FYI: I have not had a chance to listen to the recording yet) is it that currently not enough time has passed to say with enough confidence that there is a clear climate change signal in any apparent drying over recent decades. There are a few multi-decadal macro regional climate regimes that might explain it. Global emissions didn’t start ramping up in a huge way until post WW2. That ramp up overlaps with some of these regimes, so it’s too hard to say. At the same time we’ve been pumping significant volumes of a range of aerosols into the upper atmosphere in recent decades too with the huge growth in air travel. Again, that may be having some influence.
Over topping all of this, is that there is still a bit of debate amongst meteorologists (and I know a very distinguished one) regarding what a drought actually IS. Meaning, the definition of a drought is still a bit grey. Not a surprise when a definition for a heatwave didn’t firm up until just a few years ago.
I do find your comments regarding cyclones pretty incongruous with your insinuations/arguments against any link people may be erroneously be making between historical and present droughts and climate change. There are some overlaps in the reasons for uncertainties with droughts as for tropical cyclones. Our TC record is not long enough and robust enough (from a modern monitoring tools perspective) to alleviate that uncertainty. That is to say, “we’re” still reasonably iffy about reasons for year-to-year and decade-to-decade variability in TC occurrence and severity and range. What I’m saying is, you looked at a graph and see a downward trend. But if you knew what you were talking about, you’d know that that’s a faulty conclusion to draw, for the reasons I’ve just mentioned. You may find trends for Atlantic hurricanes a bit more exciting (does appear to be something different going on over there compared to our hemisphere for some reason…again, we’re not sure….YET).
You make a good point re. earthquakes etc. Though few are aware that a longer consequence of climate change may be an uptick in geologic and tectonic activity (check out something called ‘isostatic rebound’, it is truly fascinating stuff!). SLR may in fact increase “the reach” of tsunamis as the bathymetry offshore is not going to keep up with the increase in mean sea level (meaning less drag on tsunami waves). Though given where SLR projections are going currently, it’s probably going to be negligible, with the origin, height and angle of a wave still being like 99% (made up %) the driving force behind the damage.
Floods are definitely a product of rainfall intensity, duration, coverage, and land surfaces. As you imply, we have made whatever we’re seeing worse by removing vegetation and putting impermeable surfaces everywhere. Just gotta look at flash flooding in suburban BNE to see that in action.
One thing the models show (for the regions I’ve looked at downscaled, mainly east coast Aust.) is that whilst the mean total annual rainfall isn’t expected to change, the winter and spring months will get drier relative to the historical mean, and the summer months wetter. This is not good as it means more intense storms which lead to more frequent severe flooding (and flash flooding) events and greater top soil erosion from all the land clearing we’ve done. And a drier ground (and less vegetated ground) is a harder ground. Coupled with more intense rainfall events, means less water penetrates the surface and recharges aquifers, which are critical to those who extract water and what’s called “groundwater dependent ecosystems”. In coastal zones where these aquifers occur (in “sandy” geologies) this means there is less head pressure that can work against the increasing sea levels. Meaning underground, saline water may push further inland compared to where you may see the high water mark. This could lead to mass die-off of vegetation in these coastal zones. Particularly really sensitive marshes.
“there is a trend of warmer temperatures on top of the natural warming trend (even if figures have been fudged a little)” No. There is non-sense that is repeatedly peddled by those who stand to lose financially if the world takes action to reduce emissions (I am not saying that you are these people). The process of correcting errors in datasets, none of which is disputed by those who actually understand what is going on, has been a deliberately misconstrued as “a fiddling of the data to support a foregone/desired conclusion”. You can find a myriad of official material that explains what has gone on with this lie.
…phew, that was a long one!
This might be a good time to mention that, despite some of my grenade lobbing and seeming facetiousness, I studied climate science as part of my environmental science degree - hence why I get long-winded (and you may feel defensive and/or combative).
But I'm very far from an expert. Much closer to "noob/a generalist flog consultant" than "expert".
Where did i say anything about a 100 year drying trend?
BTW. nothing i talked about was in regard to the link you shared.
It would be great if the cyclone data was a much longer period 50 years is decent but 100+ years would be better, but looking at the data, it's quite clear there has been a downward trend in cyclones.
However if this just a natural trend and at some stage will end and we go back into a more regular trend of more cyclones the reason will be labeled as because of climate change.
So why isn't the reduction of cyclones labeled as being because of climate change when everything else is?
If the trend was the exact opposite you can guarantee it would be a big focus and the reason would be because of climate change..
I mean even if we get a cyclone hot the coast this year, it will be labeled because of climate change, if we get a cyclone tracy scenario it will 100% because of climate change.
But all the data is saying the opposite.
It is Indo.
One of the climate change predictions for our area is fewer (but more intense) cyclones.
The data is still not showing that it's actually showing a slight trend of less intense cyclones as you can see 2015-16 was the first year in recorded history where no severe cyclone was recorded.
To me this makes sense you would expect the more cyclones you have the more chance one will become severe, also the more cyclone you have no matter the size the more chance of one hitting a populated area of land.
You commented. It's your contribution to the thread. It's in effect a statement made by one, Indo_Dreaming. In that you quoted someone who said there's no 100-year-drying trend. You then backed up your selection of this quote to say "I do not see any pattern..." when referencing the illustration. Mate, you basically did everything to say there is no trend short of saying "I, Mr Indo Dreaming, do hereby formally declare that to the best of my unqualified knowledge there is no 100 year drying trend. Q.E.T. With deep regrets, Sincerely Mr Indo Dreaming." And then threw in a qualifying statement to say "yeah but I could be wrong because whaddya I know". You tread this fine line between saying "I'm on board, why ya'll hatin' me so much", but in the same breath cast doubt by suggesting things are still up in the air and maybe we need to wait another 10 years. Which whilst it may not be your intent, is a classic anti action to reduce emissions tactic who'd prefer us to keep us riding the fossil fuel train baby woo! Barnaby J. is a classic example. First he was "No climate change" then "maybe", then it was "aw yeah but it's natural causes only brah", and now it's "aw yeah seems there's probably a human effect but it prob won't be as bad as all these inner city lefties think it'll be so we should just wait and see" before we trash the share price of my backers. But Of course, by the time we have 99% certainty (which we do on the whole, but not as high for specific sub-topics), it'll be too late to shift the entire global economy and agricultural system to a "clean" footing. So yeah cool, let's wait. Are you familiar with Pascal's Wager?
Far out, do you even read climate science literature. They are indeed literally positing that the downward trend could be due to climate change. Of course that doesn't fit with your "everyone is engaged in climate hysteria" stance, so of course you wouldn't bother to check. That would be an inconvenient truth for you no doubt. Your rhetoric on here to many is "come on, be realistic/don't be an uninformed pleb", but then you go on draw a conclusion based on.....a 50 year graph? Heck, you even acknowledged it would be better to have longer dataset...but that didn't stop you did it? Something about a kettle...
Based on your anecdotes on this website, you sound like you've seen a fair few more decades than I have. But it sounds like you've still got some growing up to do.
I don’t think the argument that people should live as though God exists is the best parallel to be drawing when trying to convince people about climate change.
I see your point , but the comparison between an imaginary , wrathful sky man and AGW is some handy ammunition for those who are doubtful.
Maybe fair point, though it's not really to convince them AGW is real. But rather to say "look, even if you're not convinced on the science, you can view the situation with this logic...", which doesn't require people to be 100% convinced, just averse to extreme risk.
Though I've not personally heard anyone use that as a counter argument or use it as a basis for a parallel argument for inaction. How would you see that one playing out specifically?
Here's the temperature version of what I posted before, sorry haven't followed the last few comments..
That one shows are very clear pattern, but im assuming this is after adjusted temp records.
Not saying there wouldn't still be a clear trend, but id love to have a comparison that hasn't been tampered with in anyway (Yes i know the reasons why, but if you look deeper into it, its hard to not get a feeling the books are being cooked, there is some very suss adjustments)
If that trend is real and continues though, then shit could get serious pretty quick that rate of change is very fast.
In that case best case scenario for the world would be Trump declares war on China, and bomb all their coal fired powered power plans, that will cut world emissions instantly by almost one third, and put a huge stop to world consumption.
It was a joke okay :D
Suss, adjustments, what are you on about??
So now the actual data can't be trusted. seriously.
From Alex Zadnik, another well knowledged Meteorologist.
"BOM retain both the raw and statistically adjusted records (to account for changes in measurement devices using sound scientific methods). Both show a significant warming trend. You can read all of this on the BOM climate page. NOAA in the USA, Japan Met Agency, etc. records all show a significant global warming trend."
The problem with your whole post is that i support a reduction in carbon emissions, im just realistic on how this should be done and acknowledge what is being done.
Im also of the view point that any change always has positives and negatives, but we never hear this, its always that everything is more negative.
I haven't read much on the reduction of cyclones, but if this is acknowledged as part of climate change, then yes there is another clear positive. (off course the argument is less but more severe, but the data doesnt support that either)
In regards to something like current fires, we all know the big reason this year there is more and severe is the long drought we have had, when things are dry they obviously burn much better.
But the data clearly shows no trend or pattern so to assume this is because off climate change is just an assumption because really we dont know the much bigger picture.
Higher daily temps themselves also increase risk on those days, but many of the fires are also in areas where the average temps are not higher or are the same (yes some major ones in areas that temps are higher too)
Plus temps are only one aspect wind strength is just as important.
Anyway check out the post in the Kelly thread that i just replied to Wingnut one where im coming from which might surprise you (written before i looked here)
Read the comments after this article...
Emissions from the generation of energy in Australia amount to 30 percent of our emissions total. This includes coal, gas , diesel etc .
Even if coal was ceased to be used tomorrow, we would still be emitting roughly 80 percent of the amount we are now.
Then who will get the blame for our emissions ? All I hear is Scomo this , Adani that , coal companies evil . But WE are all responsible for the vast , vast majority of emissions . Sooner or later we will all have to choose between our consumer lifestyle and a habitable planet.
All I can say is that everyone should enjoy the remaining time they have to furiously blame someone else for the situation ....because that time will soon be over.
"But the data clearly shows no trend or pattern so to assume this is because off climate change is just an assumption"
You're talking shit again.
People always like to shift blame rather than look at themselves., it's the east way out.
The irony is and it was touched on briefly in that article is the capitalism aspect is what is driving change, even something like roof top solar most people dont buy in because of the green aspect thats just the icing on the cake, most people buy in to save money.
There probably is too much focus in Australia on the energy aspect
stationary energy (excluding electricity),
13%; fugitive emissions, (expect most from gas production)
10%; industrial processes,
6%; waste, 3%. This includes about 13% for non-electricity residential use.[4
Problem is for many of these things above our high immigration rate fuels emissions, for us its always two steps forward then one step back instead of two steps forward.
In recent years the OS demand for gas has been a big player in increasing our emissions and that is fuelled in part by other countries replacing things like coal with gas
You're talking shit again."
That is referring to those BOM 100 year rainfall charts of Australia ( I think on page back)
Can you see any trend on those charts?
The main driver of fires is 2019 extremely low rainfall, where is the evidence of a link between climate change and fire, when there is no evidence between climate change and 2019 drought.
Even Andy pittman clearly explained this last year.
Yes it's complex - some aspects of drought are linked with climate change and others are not.
But to say that "there is no evidence between climate change and 2019 drought" is bullshit.
This has been gone over again and again.
The only explanations for your denial that I can think of include -
i) you have massive ideological investment
ii) you're trolling
iii) you're seriously not very bright
iv) you have a mental illness
“…this may not be what you expect to hear. but as far as the climate scientists know there is no link between climate change and drought.
That may not be what you read in the newspapers and sometimes hear commented, but there is no reason a priori why climate change should made the landscape more arid.
So which one does Andy pitman fall into then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Pitman
But yeah if you want too i guess you can link every weather event and every weather on any given day to climate change as everything is linked some how even if we dont understand it.
My understanding is 2019 very very low rainfall was a combination of a positive IOD and an El Nino event, is that combination caused by climate change?
not El Nino.
ENSO was neutral for 2019.
Andy, you omitted one, namely: v) all of the above.
I would think vi) also is at play, namely, a personal trait of never, or at least having great difficultly, in admitting you are ever wrong.
Indo the trend is lower rainfall across the south-west of the country and southern states while there’s an increase in more localised and sporadic rainfall across the more tropical latitudes. As an example the 1000-1800mm in Townsville last year.
"Not saying there wouldn't still be a clear trend, but id love to have a comparison that hasn't been tampered with in anyway (Yes i know the reasons why, but if you look deeper into it, its hard to not get a feeling the books are being cooked, there is some very suss adjustments)"
why not just have both models available? side by side, ya know, for transparecy and stuff....
it takes about 5 minutes to crank out another model, and it'd shut down this very common criticism if the difference is that negligable
I haven't really followed this thread; have a fairly rudimentary understanding of weather; hate fucken research; and am working on pure instinct....
but, Indo, one of the climate change predictions is increase in variability of weather
variability rainfall, variability, cyclones (intensity), variability winds, variability snow, variability highs and low temps., variability droughts (possibly), etc.
this variability shows in your convo...
"Indo the trend is lower rainfall across the south-west of the country and southern states while there’s an increase in more localised and sporadic rainfall across the more tropical latitudes. As an example the 1000-1800mm in Townsville last year. "
and the cyclones you talked about
now to go down the road of old wives tales...
no matter where you go these days, no matter who you meet, whatever country you are in, everyone seems to agree the weather is more unpredictable than before, ...more variable...
I've noticed it myself, I'm often not in SA, but that's where I grew up, so know it best, and what I've noticed is the seasons are not as defined, more crossover between, more lag, more variable, same in indo, same east coast, possibly same vicco
in SA, more wintery fronts through summer, and winters not as consistently cold. more runs of days above 40 degrees through summer, broken up with cold fronts in between. more variable winters, and seemingly general increasing water temps. all year
before we had reliable winters, and summers, stable cold winters (and water), and warm to hot summers, with long hot spells slowly building up to the 40 degrees mark, but rarely over, often building up over an 6- 10 day period, but rarely exceeding that 40 degrees mark for more than a day or so. now we seem to have more abrupt changes, cool summer days quickly changing to many days that are above 40 degrees, only to cool right down again. more variability
well into old wives tale land now...
but I reckon most people across the globe -of all persuasions - agree the weather's a bit crazy, a bit all over the place, a bit ...variable, and we're noticing it in our own lifetimes
could you draw a link between increased variability, increased droughts, drier conditions and climate change? - and thus this event?
I reckon it would be pretty fair to do so
can you draw a 'direct'* link between this particular drought and climate change?
I don't think so
not least because we don't even have a definition for 'unprecedented'...
*direct is the key word, same use as with that other guy you were arguing about weeks ago, subtle but important use in science
...a use that can identify ideologues and ideologies it would seem...
“I haven't really followed this thread; have a fairly rudimentary understanding of weather; hate fucken research; and am working on pure instinct.”
My guess that makes you eminently qualified to comment here with authority. You may also wish to seek a highly paid climate change expert journalist position at any of the Murdoch rags.
Further, if you’re over 50, fat, balding and come from a position of privilege and have a face remotely resembling a busted arsehole covered in infected pussy boils try a job at Fox
... and I thought I was on your side...
(that was to gs)
Ha ha im confused too
Indo has never let the facts get in the way of a good story
here's a good story:
Nice research if you can get the grant for it...
I posted this in the comments on the Slater article but was interested in views on this.
Change I believe has to happen and that includes transitioning to clean energy and then moving on to transport and other issues.
But this would condemn billions of people.
How do you get consensus when you start from such an extreme position.
Can't read the link, pay walled, but change is already happening renewables are a huge growing market all around the world including Australia, not driven by people wanting to save the environment, but by people wanting to save money and companies wanting to make money, ironically capitalism is the biggest driver.
Its calling for the immediate end of use of fossil fuel is my take on it
If you're talking about the Gaurdian article
"Instead, they should invest their money in existing sustainable technologies, research.."
The article seems more to be about the global banks and governments subsidising the fossil fuel industry. The call is stop the subsidies and instead put the money into developing alternatives.
Which would probably result in a more sustainable transition.
Yes I should try and find their policy directly rather than media interpretation of it.
Re-directing money into research makes sense as well and taking that away from subsidies.
Immediate stopping industries without addressing the impact on the developing countries lacks compassion. It has to be planned.
I must say though that the defence that Australia cant lead because it has to protect its economy now a bit hollow given what damage has now occurred in so many small local economies as a result of the bushfires.
I think there is an argument to phasing out subsidies to fossil fuels and even putting that money into renewables.
But you would think it would have to be cleverly balanced.
If you just cut subsidies to onshore coal generation, all that would happen is that loss of profit would need to be taken up by the consumer.
So energy prices would rise, which is great for renewables as would provided even more incentive for people to put on roof top solar.
The down side is for people who don't have access to roof top solar like people who rent or those that live in city unit blocks etc, so it would be a kick in the guts for a lot of people in particular a lower demographic of people many already struggling.
Other issue is once prices rise, they wont fall again, even when renewables kick in, the companies aren't going to go okay, we will now give you electricity for 50% less, if the public can afford higher prices they would just continue with higher prices and take a larger percentage profit themselves.
The other risk is you send the fossil fuel industry broke, now you might think that sounds good, but if they got to a point where coal fired energy was too expensive and running at a loss, whats to stop them just shutting plants down?
Again you might think that sounds great, but the reality is even if we can get to a point where we can produce 100% renewable energy from the grid during day light hours, you still need to produce energy at night or have reliable storage systems, problem is they don't exist or are too costly and the best options like pumped hyrdo are also costly and need certain geographical situations (someone claimed this is not true the other day, but the research ive done says its true, gravity is what makes it possible) also you need lots of water which we don't have other than salt water (assume possible)
The other problem is there is times when our energy needs are much much higher than average days like on very hot days, i read an article the other day and they claimed up to 20 times the average day energy use (but that does sound hard to beleive) but A/C units do use lot and lots of energy especially the starting wattage.
This is the big problem, you either need to provide all that energy or you need to stores all that energy, the first option might be possible one day and sell the excess (to OS market but unlikely to get the same price as in OZ ) the option of storing that much energy though would never be viable from a cost perspective, basically spending billions maybe trillions for a few days a year.
So you not only need to provide enough energy during the day for an average day, and then also need to cover an average night too somehow, you also need to allow for those peak times like very hot days or very cold days.
If you are state like SA for example this is all possible because when you need more energy you can get it from other states.
But when you are a country you either need to provide it all yourself or get it from another country .
Gold Coast (Friday Night) Rain was Sledgehammer'n'down..
100mm per hour over 325mm in some spots
We speak with GC local tbb: "Heaviest we ever had, apart from that one time when my back was playing up & my car wouldn't start then this duck
Sorry to cut you off...just confirming we have video- back to the comments box..
tbb was right! Storm cell was 1 in 100 year event. (So Heavy it would've knocked yer block off!)
Not strange as 2 years back we had heaviest doomsday ground shaking thunder.
Joins GC recent record breaking heat, lightning strikes, highest wave, coldest Temps.
Winter daily Temp range has blown out from 6-24* > 0-26* (No signs of abating)
Also recent Hinterland Cyclone & Bush Fire devastation was most costly ever.
This song was huge when I was 4.
I usually do an internal eye roll when people mention china and climate change
but it appears the numbers are now too confronting to ignore
even sir dick has gone sinophobe
go the bro!
while I'm going all sinophobe...
I just watched that four corners episode on chinese influence in our uni's
I haven't yelled at the tv like that for a long time, its fucking disgraceful what some have allowed to happen to our uni's
another bloody ken doll logan clone spuriously spruiking the merits....
Its about time some of these sociapath cunts were corrected with a bit of harsh hard reality
U got anything chook?
I'd love to hear your perspective
For those that are calling for more fuel reduction burning.
There was a time before neoliberalism when local governments and state government agencies likes Parks employed rangers that actually did things, got their hands dirty as opposed to the current day rangers who mostly are desk based and award contracts to private operators to do stuff.
In Victoria it was the Kennett LNP government that introduced Compulsory Competitive Tendering which saw local governments across the state and State agencies like ParksVic, State Forests and the Department of Sustainability and Environment retrench rangers in great numbers because as the neoliberal lie goes it’s cheaper and more efficient to get a contractor to do the doing rather then direct employees.
It is likely this CCT was introduced across the country given the popularity of neoliberalism with governments over the last 30 years.
So suddenly instead of managing people it was a budget, an ever diminishing budget, that needed to be managed or not. Didn’t the RFS have their budget just before this summer by the NSW LNP government?
On the ground where I live backing onto a national park managed by the state government this means we have 3 seperate council contractors to maintain the park down the end of the street, one to cut the grass, one to pick up the dumped rubbish and a third to trim and maintain the trees. In the national park it means the fire breaks are slashed on an hourly basis, meaning if the contractor runs out of time before the job is finished it stays that way until next year. It also means there is not weed management nor feral pest control. How efficient is that?
I fully expect Smoko’s royal commission will be big on fuel reduction but his words will be meaningless, hollow, another lie unless huge ongoing budgets are allocated to staff the agencies to allow them to do the job they want to do.
sypkan ...tbb has wrote similar here about Goldie & Unis..same deal. Bid for Games of any sort to blur CBD/Regional compliance. Declare your city regional as Brisbane (Example) & have city cbd > Airport > Uni precinct hot wired to China's biometric cams for Social Credit compliance.
Then your city qualifies for Fed govt to pork barrel more Chinese Uni Students(Tourist Dollars) "To The Regions"... Perth is no longer a Capital City (No Joke) nor Darwin & Gold Coast.
All declared regional / cities & all in a race to become Dutto compliant drones. Dutto's public face is pushed as all anti Chinese, that being because he is #1 Social Credit puppet master & has Oz more compliant than any other country. (US do social credit thru google /facebook/Credit agencies blah blah) Oz can't, so need to go full frontal thru municipal portals as China needs to likewise in reverse for o/s citizen compliance. (Bingo a bio match) You'd be surprised how many open innocent "Cool" Oz / Global Corps are in bed with same Chinese Companies! (loTAA merged with Oz Govt LaRaWAN or NNN National Narrowband Network (World First)
Worth about $120b to Oz ecomomy by 2025.
Check Pollie/Uni Yuppie start Ups that tentacle thru town start ups of social goody 2 shoes but in reverse flow are just extending China's reach for more complete Family visas compliance.
Feds stack elite code breaking Chinese Gangs (As seen on 4 corners) to infiltrate both Chinese / Oz student Data . Recall open Oz Census Fail or was it held open by Oz, just long enough for China to download all expat data ? + My Health urgency to save our lives yet Only 1 . 5 % of Oz/Doctors & patients have ever accessed the scheme (Epic Fail but & heaps profitable for Dutto's Chinese Social Credits) Hot wire the Student-welfare cards+ Travel / Drivers Licence app click 'n'go transit even Oz senior bowel screen test kits are #2 lawfully compliant DNA. Now you know why they Bully you on regular No 2 samples! Chinese nana's live along time & own Oz property!
(Max SC Penalty is 10 years) Oz data loads onto Oz/China Social Credit Scheme. Basically CBD bio cam network access to all Oz www data > post 2018 (Dec).Law prevents www to hand a key to Dutto but they can & do point to where he can build an open window & promise to look the other way.
[Dutto 2018 Patch] is now on all tech you buy but Company is obliged (Not) to tell you & can keep it secret if so desired.
Anyhow 95% of Oz companies got wind & use US clouds for transactions until Dutto got Trump to out them.
Now Oz firms must pay a $squillion on Swiss Clouds to get the terminator off their backs. Yep! Dutto has them in sight + www knew Dutto was outing them so they adopted end 2 end encryption, to prevent Dutto getting his scooper in and under their Social credit gold mine. This is not about Tax evasion but of sovereign ownership of Oz data that can be onsold for Social Credit brownie points to China.
# 1 Chinese Spy city Gold Coast needs 5 Chinese/2 Taiwanese sister cities + A Chinatown @ GC CBD Mayor's -Light Rail Hub (#1 internet) Our sisters help hot wire Social Credit Scheme on par with Chinese cbd's...all our Com Games cctv network was lowered for facial recognition. GCCC free wi-fi is how they access your data / banking / TV choices to travel routes / Shopping / Sports / Library is recorded & replayed from start to end. If you've been naughty then Dutto will hand over the vid' as evidence to Chinatown.
Here's the Chinese social credit instigators signing on as equal partners...
Here's your Social Credit Postcard Holiday Vid. As a Goldie local I'm obliged to answer what is not hot wired to Central China...easiest job ever...nothing on the radar! Every Oz City is racing to join Chinese Social Credit Scheme Fad.
Here's a kidz version in Victoria that links to China HQ
Ok! So now my internet is slowing down with each word written about the ..............
& that's how it works...you're home from school again today son... That's strange my car engine was just immobilised as it entered the city & why am i on that Giant TV & that Countdown Top 40 Chart & What are those numbers that disappear with every word I type..Oh!....Oh! ...Oh! Shit ..tbb has gotta go cause Dutto's NBN men in black are here...have a nice life.
it easy to blame National Parks for lack of hazard reduction but the reality is that they have had their budgets cut by the State Govt. The office near me on the North Coast NSW didn’t have enough budget for diesel to even go up and check the parks on the escarpment pre bushfires. So when the fires do come the fire trails are not maintained and there probably hasn’t been enough hazard reduction. Not the NPWS fault, the State Gov fault for insufficient funding.
This article from a couple years ago shows where things were headed pre bushfires with reductions in staff numbers and funding. Look at the parks mentioned in the article such as New England and Kosciuszko, these parks were identified then as being underfunded and can now see the consequences. The conditions that lead to these fires could not have been prevented but more staff and maintenance funding could have helped mitigate the fires.
Nah bullshit distracted it's the greenies fault cos they made us have national parks and then blocked the burns and albo too cos he behaves like a woman and china can fix it but they fault too.
Sad part is if they do have this royal commission the only people thrown under the bus will be the people on the front line tryin to do their job with less and less money. And the grrenies but I read their fully guilty so