Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The nation's top climate scientists and science bodies have for the first time endorsed a major report that says Australia's climate has shifted permanently in some cases.
The peer-reviewed assessment notes that there is "strong consensus" around this central finding, and in some cases the weather has changed for good.
Last summer was by all means a record breaker, with 123 weather records broken in 90 days.
As well as heat waves and unprecedented temperatures, there was heavy rainfall and major flooding.
But according to the Climate Commission, this was not a one-off.
In its most comprehensive assessment analysis, the commission says Australia has a future of records yet to be broken and "in some cases day-to-day weather has shifted for good".
"We see a pattern emerging. The south-west and the south-east of Australia have become drier - the south-west since the mid '70s and the south-east since the mid '90s," report author Professor Will Steffen said.
"That tells us for the future that we would expect to see dry conditions more often, more droughts in the future and very importantly we don't expect to see the previous pre-climate-change weather conditions come back.
"To a certain extent, for a long period of time the best we can hope for, at least in terms of [our] grandchildren, is to stabilise the planet and it will stabilise at a temperature which is probably 2 degrees or more above the pre-industrial.
"That means some changes in patterns will lock in probably for centuries."
Poor choice of words in this report. Knowing the Australian Climate Commission "changed for good" presumably means forever or at least many centuries, though it could easily be misinterpreted for its literal meaning.
Climate changes on a constant basis, so I highly doubt that any change would be permanent, especially when it comes to precipitation patterns (which change a lot, as evidenced by the 1970's-1990's genesis of the current patterns). CO2 is far from the only influence on climate, so I think it's rather naive to believe that if CO2 is stabilized changes in solar activity and the PDO and not to mention possible volcanic activity will have no impact and that the climate will remain stable for centuries. It's good to keep track of how patterns have changed and to acknowledge exactly how they've changed, but I think claiming that it's changed for good is jumping the gun.
And the 123 weather records broken in 90 days? Is that for one city, one region, or the whole country? 123 would be a lot for one city or one area, but it would be very meager for a country of that size, considering how many records are broken in hot or cool summers in the United States.
Poor choice of words in this report. Knowing the Australian Climate Commission "changed for good" presumably means forever or at least many centuries, though it could easily be misinterpreted for its literal meaning.
I posted the article thinking they meant for good as in something not bad. Was weird because it said there is going to be less rain which is NOT good.
Climate changes on a constant basis, so I highly doubt that any change would be permanent, especially when it comes to precipitation patterns (which change a lot, as evidenced by the 1970's-1990's genesis of the current patterns). CO2 is far from the only influence on climate, so I think it's rather naive to believe that if CO2 is stabilized changes in solar activity and the PDO and not to mention possible volcanic activity will have no impact and that the climate will remain stable for centuries. It's good to keep track of how patterns have changed and to acknowledge exactly how they've changed, but I think claiming that it's changed for good is jumping the gun.
And the 123 weather records broken in 90 days? Is that for one city, one region, or the whole country? 123 would be a lot for one city or one area, but it would be very meager for a country of that size, considering how many records are broken in hot or cool summers in the United States.
The records under consideration would be from a far smaller set of observations than that available in the US. The fact that the number is quoted at all means it was "unusually" high. Size is irrelevant when the population is only about 7% or so of that of the US.
I posted the article thinking they meant for good as in something not bad. Was weird because it said there is going to be less rain which is NOT good.
The term used would have been "changed for the better" if they had meant what you assumed. In any case that's far too subjective for a science report.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
