We’re already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change,

Although we’re getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that’s translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That’s because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems

Assumption

Or perhaps this -

" Plant growth can be stimulated by elevation of CO2; photosynthesis increases and economic yield is often  enhanced. The application of more CO2 can increase  plant water use efficiency and result in less water use."

https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/60100500/csr/ResearchPubs/prior/prior_11a....

What evidence?

lee wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 1:54pm:



from the article I put up


Flannery was applying IPCC modelling and projections to (then) present circumstances in relation to reduced rainfall and that Flannery’s statement are in accordance with those.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 3:17pm:



And why wouldn't I like it. Of course you have to test an hypothesis. Have they come out and said they were wrong?

Where have I said CO2 has not risen? There is no evidence that CO2 was static at any time in our history.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 3:28pm:



How much of it? About 96% is natural.

lee wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 3:38pm:

A jump from 180ppm to 405ppm from anthropogenic sources means 96% is natural???

lee wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 3:41pm:

No, you said stressed plants would need less water.

So you were wrong. Noted.

Actually the plants use less water because of increased CO2.  That should translate to less stress.

OK. I just could not be bothered to go back a page to read your crap. I wonder how all that will translate to the real world.

you're only interested in pretending they made it up.

lee wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 7:46pm:



you think I should read blogs on collectables for my climate change information?

John Smith wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 8:33am:

You. Still you.




12/05/2024
Sydney’s Warragamba Dam has begun to spill after reaching full capacity following days of rain, as severe weather warnings continue across parts of NSW.

However, what Flannery was actually saying that climate trends at the time indicated a long-term outcome of normalized water shortage consistent with IPCC projections

What did he say, thicko

Are you now crying because he didn't say what you've spent years pretending he said?

Poor John. Makes claims and can't back them up. Such a dildo.

I've already backed up my claim that he never said that 'the dams will never fill up again'.

Are you now crying because he didn't say what you've spent years pretending he said?

John Smith wrote on May 12^th, 2024 at 7:51pm:


Tim Flannery ... declared rather bizarrely in 2007 that hotter soils meant that “even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems”.
https://theconversation.com/climate-and-floods-flannery-is-no-expert-but-neither...


Hear him say it:
https://www.facebook.com/advanceaust/videos/trust-the-experts-ft-tim-flannery-20...

Frank wrote on May 13^th, 2024 at 1:40pm:


He was talking about a specific scenario you dumb cnut.

John Smith wrote on May 13^th, 2024 at 2:39pm:

Yeah, specifically about Australia and the long term consequences of th e IPCC modelling.

SALLY SARA: What will it mean for Australian farmers if the predictions of climate change are correct and little is done to stop it? What will that mean for a farmer?

PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: We’re already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we’re getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that’s translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That’s because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we’re going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation.

That's what he said. So they made him Chief Climate Commissioner.



https://knightcartoons.com.au/cdn/shop/products/MK-rain-prediction_540x.jpg

John Smith wrote on May 13^th, 2024 at 8:02pm:

Shuuure....




Blame da modelling, thick ****.

So you're arguing he wasn't talking about the modelling?

You all lied when you pretended he said the dams would never fill

He didn't say it in the context you morons are claiming.

lee wrote on May 14^th, 2024 at 3:16pm:



In the context of this thread you dumbarse

That's because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture.

lee wrote on May 14^th, 2024 at 5:31pm:



Reply 7 you dumbarse

Tim Flannery Did Not Say Australia’s Dams Would Never Fill Again

Denialists like Bolt claim that Flannery meant by this that our dams would never fill again at any time for any reason from the date Flannery was speaking. However, what Flannery was actually saying that climate trends at the time indicated a long-term outcome of normalized water shortage consistent with IPCC projections

Flannery’s comments were to the effect that Australia was at the time currently experiencing a 60% fall in run-off going into dams due to hotter soils and greater rainfall take-up by drought-stressed vegetation and that this would be indicative of what we could eventually expect as a consistent and normal outcome in the future.

He did not say that the dams would never fill again at any time from the date he was speaking, which is the thick-as-a-brick intentionally distorted view presented by Bolt and fellow travellers. Flannery was pointing to a long-term outcome of normalized water shortage based on current data and climate trends.

Flannery’s quote in context is:

[i]We’re already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we’re getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that’s translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That’s because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems[/i]

Bolt knows, but pretends not to know, that Flannery was applying IPCC modelling and projections to (then) present circumstances in relation to reduced rainfall and that Flannery’s statement are in accordance with those. Bolt also knows that IPCC projections include intensified (i.e. more severe) but rarer flooding events, which of course would fill the dams.

https://indifferencegivesyouafright.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/tim-flannery-did-no...


so who's 'thick as a brick'?

Frank wrote on May 14^th, 2024 at 5:47pm:



THE context is that HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE SCENARIO IN THE IPCC MODELLING, you dumbarse . It's only about the hundreth time you've been told that and still it doesn't sink into that fcuken stupid excuse for a brain you have

Which modelling,

And you believe the modelling? The modelling that hasn't been verified, has no start point, has multiple parameters because they can't actually replicate the science, and can't do clouds at all, etc? If they can't do clouds how could they ever do rainfall?

Yeah, specifically about Australia and the long term consequences of th e IPCC modelling.

Bollocks.

He mentioned no IPCC anywhere that you quoted.

You misquoted me, thick liar.

Not all models are IPCC dummy.

lee wrote on May 14^th, 2024 at 7:06pm:


No one said they were dummy.

John Smith wrote on May 14^th, 2024 at 7:08pm:


Which IPCC model did he use? 

Your claim. Prove it.