Return Home Members Area Experts Area The best AskMe alternative!Answerway.com - You Have Questions? We have Answers! Answerway Information Contact Us Online Help
 Sunday 19th May 2024 06:27:16 PM


 

Username:

Password:

or
Join Now!

 

Home/Government/Politics

Forum Ask A Question   Question Board   FAQs Search
Return to Question Board

Question Details Asked By Asked On
Boy, am I glad I DON'T LIVE THERE paraclete 01/30/07
    I left this place in 1979 and now I know why.


    Climate change to 'devastate' Sydney

    January 31, 2007 06:37am
    Article from: The Daily Telegraph

    Font size: + -

    Send this article: Print Email

    SYDNEY is looming as one of the world's major climate change casualties, with temperatures expected to soar 50 per cent higher than the average rise forecast for the entire planet.
    For the first time, Australian scientists have charted in detail, the impacts on the nation's largest metropolis of man's insatiable demand for energy and burning of fossil fuels.

    The Daily Telegraph today exclusively reveals the landmark CSIRO report commissioned by the State Government which - for the first time - specifically details the impact of climate change on NSW.

    It paints a picture of a city baking under average temperatures almost 5C higher than now - which will kill 1300 people a year - and one battered by extreme winds and permanent drought.

    NSW Premier Morris Iemma said the report's findings were alarming.

    "This might sound like a doomsday scenario, but it is one we must confront," Mr Iemma said.

    And it will put pressure on Prime Minister John Howard to commit to the same tough targets set by NSW - to reduce greenhouse gases 60 per cent by 2050.

    Comparing today's climate, the CSIRO predicted Sydney would resemble the harsh dry conditions of the tiny village of Paterson, 150km northwest of the state capital, in less than 25 years.

    By 2070, average temperatures will have soared by 4.8C - compared with 3C forecast for the planet by the International Panel for Climate Change this week.

    In summer, maximum temperatures could rise by as much as 7C by 2070. But heat-related deaths will jump from 176 a year - the current annual average - to 1312 by 2050.

    Our dams will be drained of water as the city plunges into a virtually permanent dry spell and evaporation rates increase by 24 per cent.

    The frequency of droughts now average three every decade. By 2070 there will be only one year out of 10 that is free of drought.

    The bleak assessment suggested Sydneysiders would have to reduce water consumption by 54 per cent for the city to remain sustainable within the next 20 years.

    Extreme weather events, including 110m storm surges by 2100, will devastate the coastline as well as property.

    Bushfire frequency will almost double, with rainfall expected to be reduced by up to 40 per cent.

    The report will prompt calls for the creation of a national emissions trading scheme to be put back on the agenda despite Mr Howard's reluctance to sign up.

    "The Commonwealth can no longer put its head in the sand on this issue. I have repeatedly asked the Prime Minister to show national leadership by convening a climate change summit," Mr Iemma said.

    "I do not want my kids to ask me in 10 years time why I didn't do more to address the issue of climate change."

    The CSIRO report warned that the city must work out how to adapt quickly, with the impacts of human-caused global warming now apparently inevitable.

    "The future climate of Sydney is likely to be warmer and drier," the report says. "Such trends would also increase evaporation, heat waves, extreme winds and fire risk.

    "Nevertheless, despite this trend towards drier conditions, the possibility of increases in extreme rainfall events remain.

    "Although average changes in temperature, rainfall and evaporation will have long-term consequences for the catchment, the impacts of climate change are more likely to be felt through extreme weather events."

    Climate change forecasts for the coastal zone put Narrabeen and Collaroy on the hot zone for storm-inspired sea surges of about 22m - which would inundate homes.

    Freak surges of 110m would be catastrophic.

    "Such increases in storm surge in conjunction with sea level rises, would increase the risk of coastal inundation," the CSIRO said.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    I can't help feeling someone left the decimal points out of those storm surges but 5'C is a big increase in summer temperatures which can already hit 105'F, from what I read the Tsumami has nothing on this and if it happens here it happens everywhere?

      Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 01/30/07 10:36 pm:
      Clete, I don't live in Phoenix - thank God :)

      Clarification/Follow-up by paraclete on 01/31/07 3:47 am:
      I don't know Steve It might save you from that 100 m tsunami

      Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 01/31/07 2:31 pm:
      Not worried about it. I live over 600 miles (965.6km) from the nearest coast at an elevation of 3672 feet (1119.23m). Between us and the coast is a canyon, 120 miles long (193.12km), as much as 20 miles wide (32.19km) and 800 feet (243.84m) at its deepest. If a tsunami reached that far we'd probably have a huge new lake just south of town.

      Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 01/31/07 4:52 pm:
      WATER FRONT PROPERTY !!!!!! YEAH !!!!!!

      Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 02/01/07 4:37 pm:
      Paraclete,

      >>>averages tell you nothing.<<<

      Wrong. Only by looking at averages over a period of time can trends be found. If you look only at current temperatures then you are not analyzing a TREND. The only way to analyze a trend is by looking at the averages for the period in question and comparing them to each other. That's the only way to actually tell if temperatures are trending up or whether it is just an anomaly.

      >>>Interestingly winter returned in December with some of the coldest December days in living memory with wide spread snow falls, a most unusual event.<<<

      Definitely not indicative of a warming trend.

      >>>What does this tell me, traditional ideas of climate are wrong? or is it that there have been dramatic shifts in climate and we are yet to understand it's implications.<<<

      Or... it might tell you that weather sometimes has anomalies, sometimes has particularly high temperatures and sometimes has partiularly low temperatures. Anomalies don't indicate anything. Only averages over a period of time can indicate a trend. And as you can see from the data I collected, there is no such trend.

      >>>I look at protographs of early settlers and there was snow on the ground, I have rarely seen that here, so tell me again that it isn't getting warmer.<<<

      I hear the descriptions of Greenland at the time it was settled, (warm, good farming, lush lands... thus the name "Greenland") and now I look at the glaciers there. Tell me again that there is global warming.

      >>>Please do the precipitation levels analysis in Eastern Australia with emphasis on the regional centres and tell me what it tells you.<<<

      I assume that Sydney is considered an Eastern Australian regional center. Here is the data for January of each year.

      Year Percip(mm)
      1944 0.0
      1945 0.0
      1946 N/A
      1947 N/A
      1948 159.5
      1949 138.9
      1950 112.3
      1951 197.6
      1952 30.5
      1953 75.7
      1954 84.1
      1955 198.9
      1956 84.3
      1957 59.7
      1958 N/A
      1959 N/A
      1960 0.0
      1961 0.0
      1962 0.0
      1963 0.0
      1964 0.0
      1965 0.0
      1966 0.0
      1967 0.0
      1968 0.0
      1969 0.0
      1970 N/A
      1971 N/A
      1972 N/A
      1973 0.0
      1974 0.0
      1975 0.0
      1976 0.0
      1977 0.0
      1978 0.0
      1979 85.6
      1980 0.0
      1981 66.6
      1982 93.0
      1983 30.2
      1984 158.8
      1985 7.1
      1986 126.3
      1987 30.0
      1988 183.1
      1989 107.5
      1990 56.9
      1991 38.4
      1992 52.3
      1993 64.5
      1994 23.7
      1995 86.4
      1996 168.2
      1997 175.0
      1998 69.6
      1999 0.0
      2000 33.8
      2001 207.5
      2002 80.0
      2003 11.9
      2004 51.0
      2005 50.6
      2006 68.3


      As seen above, January 1960 - 1970 had no percipitation at all. Whereas the past 5 years, 2002-2006 each had percipitation. Looking for a pattern to it, though, is impossible, because there isn't a pattern. Some years have lots of percipitation, some have none at all. There is no pattern to it. Again, I have graphed this information, and the results are all over the graph with no discernable pattern.

      I can do an analysis of annual percipitation for the same period if you'd like, but it will take more time. I'll see if I can gat you the information soon. But I expect that we will see the same thing... which is the fact that there is no pattern at all. And if there is another city or locale that you'd like me to review, let me know. The result will most likely be the same.

      Elliot

 
Summary of Answers Received Answered On Answered By Average Rating
1. The doomsayers and alarmists are at it again. It's pure ...
01/30/07 ETWolverineExcellent or Above Average Answer
2. They don't have to worry about storm surges yet but the f...
01/30/07 ItsdbExcellent or Above Average Answer
3. Just a confirmation of the hell hole the place has become...
01/31/07 MathatmacoatExcellent or Above Average Answer
4. I'm going to make a bumper sticker :CLIMATE CHANGE HAPPEN...
01/31/07 tomder55Excellent or Above Average Answer
5. Let's hope that these predictions and those who call them...
01/31/07 drgadeExcellent or Above Average Answer
6. Paraclete, >>>summer didn't come a month early this sea...
01/31/07 ETWolverineExcellent or Above Average Answer
Your Options
    Additional Options are only visible when you login! !

viewq   © Copyright 2002-2008 Answerway.org. All rights reserved. User Guidelines. Expert Guidelines.
Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.   Make Us Your Homepage
. Bookmark Answerway.