The question is never considered. You would think that groups convinced that horrible AGW consequences are imminent would want 3 things:Sangoma wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:15 amYeah, the temperature is increasing. By about one degree Celsius since 1961-1890. If you reconcile it with the quote in my earlier post, that the Bureau of Meteorology in Australia is limiting the lowest temperature that an individual weather station can record - what do you make of this increase?
I know it will fall on dead ears, but I will repeat it nevertheless. I am not arguing that temperatures are increasing, I am not convinced that it is due to human activity. In this light I am not really moved by Federer's complaints about the weather.
By the way, if you wonder around the site you posted you will find this:
That's exactly what this continent needs: decrease of rain in the coastal regions (more tourists) and increase of rain inland (farmers). Trust me, no farmer in Australia will ever complain about increasing rain. Would you wonder why this fact - the positive side of increasing temperatures - is not discussed in the media?Consistent with global studies, an increase in the proportion of heavy rainfall has been detected over Australia. The fraction of Australia receiving a high proportion (greater than the 90th percentile) of annual rainfall from extreme rain days (greater than the 90th percentile for 24 hour rainfall) has been increasing since the 1970s. Significant regional variability exists, with the east coast region experiencing a significant decrease in extreme rain events since 1950. There is also an increase in the fraction of Australia receiving summer (December to February, accumulated) rainfall that is above the 90th percentile.
1) Make it stop
2) Mitigate the damage via infrastructure investments
3) Take advantage of whatever benefits occur in specific areas such as inland Australian farmers
Yet, "make it stop" is 99.9% of what we hear discussed even though the world has not shown any inclination to truly make it stop. I think it's evidence that we're being lied to or appeased by virtue signalers. At the very least it shows warmers aren't being serious about dealing with the consequences or opportunities associated with AGW.
Personally I think it's a religious urge that involves appeasing the angry god. Mitigating damage or taking advantage of warming changes are the acts of blasphemers and we all know how the angry god treats blasphemers. Hence, it's ignored. It's a story as old as time.