As Trump attacks US science agencies, ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred ushers in a fresh wave of climate denial in Australia | Adam Morton

INot the time for climate science. The Trump administration has removed more than a thousand employees from the National Oceanic and Air Country Administration, the country’s leading weather and climate -science prediction agency, which may destroy its ability to carry out life -saving work to predict hurricanes and other harsh weather events. The New York Times plans are under implementation To launch 1,000 people. If this is true, this will take the cuts to about 20 % of the workforce.

On Monday, NASA was announced Small scholars, Catherine CalvinWho were appointed to lead the agency’s work in climate change. In the brands Donald Trump/Elon Musk, it appears there Little care or feeling in the place where the cuts were made. It is a destruction for destruction, with tens of thousands of scientific papers that the peers reviewed by the understanding of climate science that was rejected as a “trick” or, in some way, “wake up.” As in most areas, what happens in the United States on prediction and scientific ability will have an effect that exceeds its limits.

In Australia, last week witnessed a new wave of climate denial as the former Hurricane of Farid approached and hit the southern coast of Queensland. In particular, the NEWS Corp ports operated the Man Straw’s arguments that attack people who tied the storm strongly to the climate crisis.

Some commentators have indicated that southern Queensland has hurricanes before. Others suggested that there is uncertainty about the data about the pace and the way it changes, and that the climate change did not cause “Alfred. Well, yes. This is all true, of course, but barely the point.

What he did not mostly say is that the ocean and the atmosphere is clearly warmer even even a few years ago. Or that this means that the most intense storms that were formed in warmer conditions carry more energy and more water. Or that the conditions in which tropical hurricanes can be formed south with the high temperature of the planet.

Tropical hurricanes can be formed when the sea is 26.5 ° C. The temperatures are not enough at this level to form the hurricane – a set of climatic conditions must occur – but it is reached and often in places far from the equator.

As Klisheh goes, the flower is increasingly loaded towards an extreme event worse than it was in the past. We have downloaded the blossom by burning fossil fuels in larger and larger quantities. They were the main engine for an increase of more than 50 % in the amount of carbon dioxide besieged in the air since pre -industry times.

The evidence is that this makes tropical hurricanes less frequent but more dense. There are data indicating that it also tends to continue for a longer period. More intensity in addition to time is equal to increasing the risk of damage and losses. This does not mean that every hurricane or extremist storm will be more harmful than it was in the past. This means that when one comes, the possibility of carrying enough energy to cause great chaos does not decrease.

The additional energy in the hurricane has a number. Almost 200 years ago, physicists have found that if the atmosphere is 1C heated, it can carry about 7 % of water vapor and more rain. It has proven significantly correct.

What they did not know is that it was only part of the story-in the event of some strong storms in a warmer climate, there are additional double factors in the atmosphere that can increase its strength and lead to an increase of 30-40 % in the severity of topical rain. Yes, due to climate change.

The reference to this matter is not a “political lecture”, as Senator suggested the Liberal National Party, Matt Canavan last week. It is also not a form of hysteria or an expression of religious belief, as the excessive Sky News suspended. It highlights the relevant facts of how to prepare for what awaits us.

All this may feel as if it is a painful clear statement, given the years of scientific investigation and reporting. For those who feel this way: I hear you. The debate about the climate crisis can seem stuck in the eternal bad faith, even as it tries to address it.

But let’s think about more facts. If you are after a clear picture of physical sciences, you can do worse than listening to Professor Mark Hoden, Director of the Climate, Energy and Disaster Institute at the Australian National University, and Vice -Chairman of the International Government Committee on Climate Change. in Climate speech case last month – Final in the role before step down this year – put an unusual list of evidence.

Some are reasonably known. The best we can say, Global Co₂ Emissions still increase last year – by 0.8 %. If we want an optimistic mode, this is mainly described as flat. But they have not yet come down.

Some of them are less understanding. In particular: There has been a “huge change” in warming since June 2023, when the temperatures were acceptable to exceed what was already a historical high level. Scientists do not know exactly the reason for this. Hoden described during the past 18 months as “confusing the mind” and “like more than a decade of temperature in two years.”

Scientists know The past decade was 10 years more on the record. They know that every day in the world in 2024 was at least hotter 1.25 ° C’s pre -industrial levels, and it was three quarters of 1.5C more hot. They know that the comments episodes make things worse. Hownen gave two examples: melting ice in the Arctic, Tundra and huge forest fires. Both of them launch large quantities of carbon dioxide₂ In the air, which exacerbates the climate crisis, which in turn makes melting and burning widely. and so on.

Hoden presented a few comprehensive points. One of them was barely veiled to the political class, and perhaps those who were accused of raising them. He said that Australia has resources and means to become a global pioneer in the solutions of zero emissions if it is the will, but it stressed: “We have to put this idea that we are following agreeing and carrying an ambitious goal of zero zero by 2050 will make us avoid 1.5 EGP. [of heating above pre-industrial levels]”

The second was not directed to the book of columns and heads of coal who will use Alfred as the latest front in an ideological war, but it could have been.

Houdin asked: “If this is not enough enough, how much certainty you need? What is the rule of evidence that you call you taking this seriously?”

Good question.