Science/Environment Climate change predictions that were wrong

[CD Xbow]

How old do you think the Great Barrier Reef is? Maybe look it up and surprise yourself.

Reefs literally are living and dying all the time.

Hairy I'm really disappointed in you. That's a thoughtless, comment straight out of a climate deniers playbook, why don't you follow it up with that commonly used zinger 'the climate always changes'

The destruction of the great barrier reef is the greatest it's ever been since European settlement, the 2025 bleaching event had the largest footprint ever recorded, affecting nearly all surveyed reefs. There is evidence recovery is slowing down and bleaching is extending to greater depths. Ningaloo Reef in Western Australia had largely escaped major bleaching until now. In 2025, it experienced its worst marine heatwave on record, with sea temperatures up to 4°C above average. The reefs affected by the algal bloom in SA will take years to recover and may not ever recover to the same form. We are in territory we have never been in before.

Yes, Hairy you are right, reefs have come and gone though the history of the planet. If you bother to learn something you will find they are one of the first affected during extinction events, when these are related to warming waters, anoxia and ocean acidification - which happened in all the major extinctions for one reason or another.

 

[Grin]

I think you will find it's a bit better than that.

The destruction of the ocean ecosystems it not something we have seen before and now for the first time in human history we have thousands of km's of SA seashore deader than Duttons nuclear plan. Same with the coral reefs, they are increasingly being affected with marine heatwaves. This has all been predicted despite it never happening before. As I explained in an earlier post, the earliest and most significant signs of the climate disaster will seen in the marine environment. Which is exactly what we are seeing and which was predicted.

Just a small point of order. Dutton's nuclear plan isn't dead:

Loading…

www.skynews.com.au

 

[CD Xbow]

Another prediction comes true, bushfires are becoming more common despite what the writers in The Australian or on Skynews tell you.

Wildfires are getting deadlier and costing more. Experts warn they’re becoming unstoppable

Of 200 fires in the past 44 years, half of the fires that cost US$1bn or more were in the last decade

www.theguardian.com

 

[PiCkLeJuiCe]

Another prediction comes true, bushfires are becoming more common despite what the writers in The Australian or on Skynews tell you.

Wildfires are getting deadlier and costing more. Experts warn they’re becoming unstoppable

Of 200 fires in the past 44 years, half of the fires that cost US$1bn or more were in the last decade

www.theguardian.com

They cite the LA fires as an example. The Santa Ana winds have existed for as long as anyone has been on the planet. The LA fire isn't a new phenomenon. The significant economic loss is caused by the a failure to properly manage the environment, continual cutting of budgets and poor maintenance of infrastructure.

 

[CD Xbow]

They cite the LA fires as an example. The Santa Ana winds have existed for as long as anyone has been on the planet. The LA fire isn't a new phenomenon. The significant economic loss is caused by the a failure to properly manage the environment, continual cutting of budgets and poor maintenance of infrastructure.

I think you will find both the number of fires and extent is increasing globally. Also the number of days of high risk are increasing. I have no doubt those things you site are contributing factors but higher global temperatures and it's impacts are more of a 'root cause'. As the writers in The Australian will point out to you it's the deranged arsonist, the careless smoker, the exploding barbeque, lightning strike, falling powerlines etc are the real root causes. However it's sort of irrelevant to the discussion of if bushfires are getting worse. Mostly these 'root causes' are things that will keep happening (hopefully not the powerline related) and it's really the question of why it's getting worse. There are lot's of things to consider in measuring 'worse' - number, extent and duration of fires, economic and human cost etc. Pretty complex, probably best left to the scientists rather than the staff journos at News Corp or us in the peanut gallery of BF.

 

[PiCkLeJuiCe]

I think you will find both the number of fires and extent is increasing globally. Also the number of days of high risk are increasing. I have no doubt those things you site are contributing factors but higher global temperatures and it's impacts are more of a 'root cause'. As the writers in The Australian will point out to you it's the deranged arsonist, the careless smoker, the exploding barbeque, lightning strike, falling powerlines etc are the real root causes. However it's sort of irrelevant to the discussion of if bushfires are getting worse. Mostly these 'root causes' are things that will keep happening (hopefully not the powerline related) and it's really the question of why it's getting worse. There are lot's of things to consider in measuring 'worse' - number, extent and duration of fires, economic and human cost etc. Pretty complex, probably best left to the scientists rather than the staff journos at News Corp or us in the peanut gallery of BF.

As the population grows, more people will be in the scope of natural disasters. Comparing lives lost, economic cost should be done on a per capita basis. Also, people ar eliving in places that they ancestors refused to live - flood plains is a classic example. The Waterways estate in Keysborough, and Waterford Valley estate in Rowville were a no develop, snake infested zone when I was a youngster - why, because it is a wet lands prone to flooding. And now, they house thousands of people. When we get a flood, we can't be attributing economic loss in these areas to climate change - but we will.

 

[CD Xbow]

As the population grows, more people will be in the scope of natural disasters. Comparing lives lost, economic cost should be done on a per capita basis. Also, people ar eliving in places that they ancestors refused to live - flood plains is a classic example. The Waterways estate in Keysborough, and Waterford Valley estate in Rowville were a no develop, snake infested zone when I was a youngster - why, because it is a wet lands prone to flooding. And now, they house thousands of people. When we get a flood, we can't be attributing economic loss in these areas to climate change - but we will.

Yes, we have been very, very short sighted but floods due to sea level rise are very much related to a warming planet. Warming planet = higher sea levels and more energetic storms = more flooding. So we can attribute it to human short sightedness and global warming with rising sea levels. When I grew up in Mordialloc the 'back of Mordialloc' was all swamp for a good distance around the creek, civilization was a pretty thin line hugging the coast all the way down to Frangers.

 

[Gethelred]

As the population grows, more people will be in the scope of natural disasters. Comparing lives lost, economic cost should be done on a per capita basis. Also, people ar eliving in places that they ancestors refused to live - flood plains is a classic example. The Waterways estate in Keysborough, and Waterford Valley estate in Rowville were a no develop, snake infested zone when I was a youngster - why, because it is a wet lands prone to flooding. And now, they house thousands of people. When we get a flood, we can't be attributing economic loss in these areas to climate change - but we will.

This isn't really an argument against climate change or doing something about it, but an argument that governments have been lax at creating infrastructure. This is a perfectly reasonable argument, but an exceedingly weird one to make within a climate change thread.

... that is, unless one is seeking to put up barriers to impede progress where ever one may in order to argue against something.

 

[barreness]

Once again, I'll post these, last three years have been very messy. It would appear the IPCC has been underestimating the rate of change if anything.

https://climatereanalyzer.org/

 

[Not Important]

summed up perfectly in a few words.

Nick Feik (@nickfeik.bsky.social)

Today’s weather is brought to you by Woodside

bsky.app

 

[CD Xbow]

Large study looked at 840 million buildings across the Global South, using satellite data and detailed elevation maps, and considered three scenarios for local sea-level rise: 0.5 meters, 5 meters, and 20 meters. The 0.5m rise by 2100 is looking increasingly optimistic, it results in the loss of 4 million properties.

Millions of Buildings Threatened by Rising Seas This Century, Study Warns

Rising seas threaten millions of lives and livelihoods in coastal regions, along with untold swaths of vital infrastructure.

www.sciencealert.com

Similar theme, fastest sea-level rise in 4000 years according to this study from Hobart https://www.sciencealert.com/millio...tened-by-rising-seas-this-century-study-warns

Sea Levels Rising Faster than at Any Time in 4,000 Years, Study Warns

A study of geological records reveals that sea levels are rising at their fastest rate in 4,000 years, underscoring the urgent need for both global and local action. A Rutgers-led team of scientists has found that today’s sea levels are climbing faster than at any point in the past 4,000 years, p

scitechdaily.com

 

[kranky al]

Not really M6.
The climate changes as it always has. What annoys me is the hysteria and ridiculous predictions scientist with financial interest love making all the time.

Mmmm the scientist on the princely wage of 120k a year, as opposed to the fossil fuel industry with no financial interest at all….

 

[kranky al]

Govt funding, grants. Who do you think pay the wages?

Have you ever sat there and thought about why, given the unlimited chequebook the fossil fuel industry has, there isn’t a beeline of climate change credentialed researchers absolutely blasting the right foot down into their arms and writing anti mmcc papers left right and centre?

I mean you have just literally accused them of doing it for 120k a year……

If money were the goal wouldn’t a blank chequebook be better……

Or could it just be that out of all the people who study this shit full time - none of them are willing to put their names on the record as a denialist and go down as the biggest quisling in human history?

 

[CD Xbow]

'Heat deaths aren't a thing' claims a Liberal party study, funded by an anonymous person. This is a climate related prediction that has already been proven wrong to anyone who looks at the problem. Someone is feeding sh!t to conservative pollies.

"Coalition sources familiar with the briefing said MPs were told it was funded by an anonymous “high net-worth individual”'
I bet it's that stupid, greedy Gina, owner of the Liberal National parties and liar extraordinaire.

‘Heat deaths aren’t a thing’: Coalition MPs weighing net zero given sceptical briefing on climate science

Exclusive: Briefing by conservative thinktank Centre for Independent Studies was arranged by a Coalition backbench committee

www.theguardian.com

Ok, some facts:

'Between 2000 and 2019, approximately 489,000 heat-related deaths occurred each year globally, a number that has been increasing due to climate change. The World Health Organization reports that heat-related deaths among people over 65 have risen by 85% since 2000–2004. In Europe, there were an estimated 61,672 excess deaths during the summer of 2022 alone'

From the USA - https://www.axios.com/2024/08/26/heat-related-deaths-climbed-117-percent-from-1999

23% increase in the rate of heat deaths: https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ne-person-a-minute-worldwide-lancet-countdown

So heat deaths are a signifcant problem and one that's increasing.

You simply can't make good decisions when you believe lies and disinformation. This is one of the reasons the Teals exist, the increasing trend for liberal folks to believe in lies & superstitions, deny scientific evidence and generally head in the direction of the cookers.

 

[nut]

Insurance companies dont insure against likely events…..

they now don’t insure 1000’s of properties that they used to.

Why?

 

[kranky al]

Insurance companies dont insure against likely events…..

they now don’t insure 1000’s of properties that they used to.

Why?

They are WOKE

 

[10571z]

Insurance companies dont insure against likely events…..

they now don’t insure 1000’s of properties that they used to.

Why?

Well they have far more regular data from their beginning to judge against.

Bush fires for example have seen the same towns burn over and over again and sooner or later they say enough is enough.

 

[nut]

Well they have far more regular data from their beginning to judge against.

Bush fires for example have seen the same towns burn over and over again and sooner or later they say enough is enough.

There are more and more likely events…. We are having 100 in hundred year floods every 5 years….
It’s laughable that people are criticising the cost of renewables and ignoring increasing closts from climate change. It’s actually complete stupidity, especially when renewables are cheaper.

 

[nut]

Apparently its a a failed ideology

 

[kranky al]

There are more and more likely events…. We are having 100 in hundred year floods every 5 years….
It’s laughable that people are criticising the cost of renewables and ignoring increasing closts from climate change. It’s actually complete stupidity, especially when renewables are cheaper.

I wonder how many 1/100 year floods we can have in a decade….

Then see if we can beat that number next decade….

Dribblehead climate denialists : challenge accepted

 

[Chief]

Ah the one where they said there’d be no snow by now,

Where is that prediction of no snow by 2025? The original study, not the click bait headline, if you could. Thank you.

or the one about no rain to fill the dams were way worse.

Droughts?

 

[kranky al]

Apparently its a a failed ideology


View attachment 2468620

In 20-30 years time when the grid is all renewables - I wonder what they will be ranting about to get people to vote right?

 

[Drought Break]

Where is that prediction of no snow by 2025? The original study, not the click bait headline, if you could. Thank you.


Droughts?

I think the poster is referring to Tim Flanneries comments in 2007 where he said even the rains that fall will not be enough to fill our dams and water ways.

 

[Seeds]

summed up perfectly in a few words.

Nick Feik (@nickfeik.bsky.social)

Today’s weather is brought to you by Woodside

bsky.app

Or its the fault of people who drive petrol cars. I.e. us. We need to take some ownership rather then blame the companies who provide what we ask them for.

 

[Gethelred]

Or its the fault of people who drive petrol cars. I.e. us. We need to take some ownership rather then blame the companies who provide what we ask them for.